First record of two eriophyoid mites (Acari: Eriophyoidea) on Cyperus rotundus L. (Cyperaceae) from Egypt Author Elhalawany, Ashraf S. . Fruit Tree Mite Department, Plant Protection Research Institute, Agricultural Research Centre, 12611 Dokii, Giza, Egypt; E-mails: dr _ ashraf _ said @ yahoo. com, ashrafelhalawany @ arc. sci. eg Author Amer, Ahmad I. . Cotton and Field Crops Mite Department, Plant Protection Research Institute, Agricultural Research Centre, Dokii, Giza, Egypt; E-mail: ahmedamer. aa 35 @ gmail. com ahmedamer.aa35@gmail.com Author Abd El Hady, Mohamed A. H. Department of Agriculture Zoology and Nematology, Faculty of Agriculture, Al Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt; Email: mohamed _ abdelhady. 5 @ azhar. edu. eg text Persian Journal of Acarology 2025 14 97 113 journal article 10.22073/pja.v14i1.85707 2251-8169 14668924 Eriophyes rotundae Mohanasundaram, 1983 ( Figs. 4–6 ) Eriophyes rotundae Mohanasundaram, 1983: 263 , Fig. 1 . Female (n = 10) Body vermiform, 240 (234–273) including gnathosoma, 44 (43–50) wide, and 41 (41–43) thick; white in life. Gnathosoma 21 (20–22), projecting obliquely downwards, basal setae ep 3 (2–3), antapical setae d 7 (7–8), palp tarsal setae v 1, cheliceral stylets 17 (16–18). Prodorsal shield 38 (33– 40) with a short blunt frontal lobe and 36 (36–37) wide; sub-triangular; prodorsal shield ornamentation with lines of granules, median line incomplete reached at ¾ from base; admedian lines complete, gently diverging to rear, and parallel; three pairs of submedian lines incomplete on anterior ⅔ of prodorsal shield ending ahead of scapular tubercles; incomplete lateral lines parallel to lateral shield side. Scapular tubercles near rear shield margin, 18 (15–19) apart, setae sc 9 (9–10), projecting upward and medially. Coxigenital area with sparse granules, with 5 (5–6) semiannuli between coxae and genitalia, prosternal apodeme present 4 (4–5); setae 1b 9 (9–10), 14 (14–15) apart; setae 1a 25 (25–27), 9 (8–9) apart; setae 2a 36 (36–40), 26 (26–27) apart. Leg I 35 (32–35), femur 12 (10–12), basiventral femoral setae bv 9 (8–10); genu 5 (5–6), antaxial genual setae l'' 30 (29–32); tibia 7 (7– 8), paraxial tibial setae l' 7 (6–8), setae located ⅓ from dorsal base; tarsus 7 (6–8); empodium em simple 7 (7–8), 4-rayed, simple, tarsal solenidion ω slightly curved and knobbed, 8 (8–9), tarsal setae ft' 17 (14–17), tarsal setae ft" 22 (20–23), tarsal setae u' 3(2–3). Leg II 30 (29–32), femur 9 (9–10), setae bv 8 (7–8); genu 5 (4–5), setae l'' 8 (8–10); tibia 5 (5–6); tarsus 7 (7–8); tarsal em simple 6 (5– 6), 4-rayed, tarsal solenidion ω 8 (7–8) slightly curved and knobbed, setae ft' 8 (7–9), setae ft" 20 (20–22), tarsal setae u' 3(2–3). Opisthosoma dorsally with 70 (68–72) semiannuli, with elongate microtubercles on rear annular margins, last 4 th semiannuli with pointed microtubercles; ventrally with 76 (74–77) semiannuli, with oval to round microtubercles on rear annular margins, the last 6 th ventral microtubercles linear. Lateral setae c2 25 (19–31), 45 (44–47) apart, on annulus 9 (9–10) from coxae II; ventral setae d 27 (27–30), 36 (36–38) apart, on annulus 23 (23–24); ventral setae e 13 (12– 15), 19 (17–19) apart, on annulus 42 (41–42); ventral setae f 27 (23–28), 20 (20–21) apart, on 6–7 th annulus from rear. Setae h1 4 (3–4), setae h2 60 (55–70). External genitalia 15 (14–15) and 23 (22– 24) wide, coverflap with ten longitudinal ridges in a single row plus three transverse lines at the base, proximal setae on coxisternum ІІІ 3a , 8 (8–10), 18 (18–19) apart. Internal genitalia spermathecae ovoid, oriented posterolaterad; spermathecal tubes relatively short; transverse genital apodeme trapezoidal, distally folded. Male (n = 7) Similar to adult female. Body vermiform, 190–224 including gnathosoma, 38–49 wide, and 42– 45 thick; white in life. Gnathosoma 20–22, cheliceral stylets 16–18, setae ep 2–3, setae d 4–5, palp tarsal setae v 1. Prodorsal shield shape and patterns similar to those of adult females, 33–38 including frontal lobe and 36–37 wide; scapular tubercles near the rear shield margin, 15–19 apart, setae sc 9– 10, projecting upward and anteriorly. Coxigenital area with few granules, prosternal apodeme present 3–4, with 6–7 semiannuli between coxae and genitalia; setae 1b 7–8, 14–15 apart; setae 1a 12–14, 9–10 apart; setae 2a 29–32, 25–26 apart. Leg I 30–32, femur 9–10, setae bv 7–8; genu 4–5, setae l'' 25–30; tibia 6–7, setae l' 6–7; tarsus 6–7; tarsal empodium em simple 6–7, 4-rayed, tarsal solenidion ω distally slight knobbed 7–8, setae ft' 13–15, setae ft" 10–24, setae u' 2–34. Leg II 28– 30, femur 8–9, setae bv 7–8; genu 4–5, setae l'' 7–8; tibia 4–5; tarsus 5–6; tarsal empodium em simple 6–7, 4-rayed, tarsal solenidion ω distally slight knobbed 7–8, setae ft' 9–10, setae ft" 18–21, setae u' 2–3. Opisthosoma dorsally with 65–67 semiannuli; ventrally with 75–77 semiannuli, shape of microtubercles similar to that of adult females. Lateral setae c2 23–25, 37–45 apart, on annulus 9–10 from coxae II; ventral setae d 21–23, 31–32 apart, on annulus 22–23; setae e 8–10, 17–18 apart, on annulus 40–41; setae f 21–25, 17–207 apart, on 6–7 th annulus from rear. Setae h1 3–4, setae h2 40– 42. External genitalia 11–12 and 23–25 wide, with granules, setae 3a 7–10, 15–179 apart. Nymph (n = 6) Body vermiform, 180–200, 35–40 wide, and 45–48 thick. Gnathosoma 17–18, curved downward, setae ep 1–2, setae d 5–6, palp tarsal setae v 1; cheliceral stylets 16–17. Prodorsal shield sub-circular, 30–34 including frontal and 30–35 wide, prodorsal shield ornamentation with median and admedian lines complete; incomplete two submedian lines, parallel on anterior half of prodorsal shield. Tubercles sc ahead of rear shield margin, 17–18 apart; sc 7–8. Coxisternal plates smooth, setae 1b 4–5, 10–11 apart; setae 1a 9–11, 7–8 apart; setae 2a 16–18, 24–26 apart; setae 3a 4–5, 9–10 apart. Leg I 19–20; femur 5–6, setae bv 6–7; genu 3–4, setae l'' 17–19; tibia 3–4, setae l' 4–5; tarsus 4–5, setae ft' 11–13, setae ft" 14–17, setae u' 1–2; tarsal ω 4–5, tapered; em 3*, simple, 3-rayed. Leg II 15–16; femur 3–4, setae bv 5–7; genu 3*, setae l'' 7–8; tibia 3*; tarsus 3–4, seat ft' 5–7, setae ft" 14–16, setae u' 1–2; ω 4–5; em 3*, simple, 3-rayed. Opisthosoma with 60–63 dorsal semiannuli, with round microtubercles situated on rear margin of each annulus, 59–60 ventral semiannuli with round microtubercles, situated on rear margin of each annulus; elongated on the posterior 5 th semiannuli. Setae c2 8–10, 42–43 apart, on 12 ventral annuli; setae d 15–17, 24–25 apart, on 20–21 ventral annuli; setae e 7–8, 16–17 apart, on 33–34 ventral semiannuli; setae f 12–13, 19–20 apart, on 5 th annulus from rear. Setae h1 2–3; setae h2 40–45. Larva (n = 3) Body vermiform, 148–164, 35–40 wide, and 40* thick. Gnathosoma 16–17 curved downward, setae ep 1–2, setae d 4–5, palp tarsal setae v 1, cheliceral stylets 16–17. Prodorsal shield subcircular, 33–37 and 22–25 wide; with incomplete median line on posterior half of prodorsal shield, admedian lines complete, sub-median lines at anterior ½, sub-parallel to admedian line. Tubercles sc near the rear shield margin, 12–13 apart; setae sc 7–9 directed anteriorly. Coxisternal plates smooth, setae 1b 4–5, 7–8apart; setae 1a 7–8, 4–5 apart; setae 2a 15–17, 20–22 apart. Setae 3a 3–4, 8–10 apart. Leg I 17–18; femur 4–5, setae bv 4–5; genu 3*, setae l'' 16–18; tibia 3*, setae l' 4–5; tarsus 3–4, setae ft' 10–11, setae ft" 13–15, setae u' 1–2; ω 4–5; em 3–4, 3-rayed, simple. Leg II 15–16; femur 4–5, setae bv 4–5; genu 2–3, setae l'' 7–8; tibia 2–3; tarsus 3–4, setae ft' 7–8, setae ft" 12–14, setae u' 1–2; ω 3–4; em 3–4, 3-rayed, simple. Opisthosoma with 35–37 semiannuli, dorso-ventrally subequal, with minute round microtubercles situated on rear margin of each annulus. Setae c2 8–10, 25–28 apart, on 7–8 ventral semiannuli; setae d 18–20, 20–21 apart, on 13–14 ventral semiannuli; setae e 6–7, 12–13 apart, on 22–23 ventral semiannuli; setae f 12–13, 15–17 apart, on 6 th annulus from rear; setae h1 1– 2; setae h2 30–32. Host plants in Egypt Cyperus rotundus L. ( Cyperaceae ). Geographical distribution India and Egypt . Relation to the host plant Vagrant underneath the inner surface of the leaf sheath surrounding the stem, causing rusted leaves; it leads to drying and death of plants. Type locality India . Material examined Twenty-one females , five males , seven nymphs, and six larvae on eight slides (slide no. EGYErio63.2-63.9), from Qaha distinct ( 30° 17' 20.02" N , 31° 14' 51.85" E ), Qalyubia governorate , Egypt , 23 July, 2021; all deposited in the mite reference collection of Fruit Trees Mites Department, Plant Protection Research Institute, Agricultural Research Centre, Egypt . Four females and two males on two slides from the same previous plant material, 15 Nov. , 2023, deposited in the mite reference collection of the Egyptian Society of Acarology Museum at ( ESAM ), Zoology and Agricultural Nematology Department , the Faculty of Agriculture , Cairo University , Giza governorate , Egypt . Four slides (slide no. EgCL01-04) deposited in the mite collection of Department of Plant , Soil and Food Sciences ( Di.S.S.P.A. ), University of Bari Aldo Moro , Italy . Two slides with the same data, deposited in the College of Agriculture and Forestry , West Virginia University , USA ( WVU ) . Some specimens from the same previous plant material, 15 Nov. , 2023, deposited in Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences ( ZIN RAS ), Russia . Figure 4. Line drawings of Eriophyes rotundae (adults) – AD. Antero-dorsal view of mite; AL. Anterio-lateral view of mite; CGF. Coxi-genital region of female; em. Empodium; GM. Genital region of male; IG. Internal female genitalia; PM. Postero-lateral view of mite; LO. Lateral view of semiannuli; L1. Leg I. Scale bar: 10 µm for AD, AL, CGF, GM, IG, and PM; 5 µm for L1 and LO; 2.5 µm for em. Figure 5. Line drawings of Eriophyes rotundae – DN. Dorsal view of nymph; VN. Ventral view of nymph; LML. Lateral view of larva. Scale bar: 10 µm. Figure 6. Photographs of Eriophyes rotunda – A. Antero-dorsal view of mite; B. Coxi-genital region of female; C. Genital region of male; D. Internal female genitalia; E. Empodium. Scale bar: 10 µm for A, B, C, and D; 5 µm for E. Table 2. Measurements of females of Eriophyes rotundae associated with Cyperus rotundus in Egypt and India, the average of the measurement precedes the mite corresponding range for different specimens (given in parentheses).

Characters	From Egypt	Eriophyes rotundae	From India
Body length	240 (234–273)	180–190
Body width	44 (43–50)	40
Gnathosoma length	21 (20–22)	15
Cheliceral stylets length	17 (16–18)	–
Setae d length	7 (7–8)	5
Prodorsal shield length	38 (33–40)	–
Prodorsal shield width	36 (36–37)	–
Setae sc length	9 (9–10)	7
Distance between sc	18 (15–19)	15
Leg I length	35 (32–35)	22
Leg II length	30 (29–32)	22
Number of empodial rays	4	4
Setae 3a length	8 (8–10)	6
No. of dorsal semiannuli	70 (68–72)	70
No. of ventral semiannuli	76 (74–77)	70
Setae c2 length	25 (19–31)	20
Setae d length	27 (27–30)	15

Table 2. Continued.

Characters	From Egypt	Eriophyes rotundae	From India
Setae e length	13 (12–15)	10
Setae f length	27 (23–28)	27
Setae h1 length	4 (3–4)	3
Setae h2 length	60 (55–70)	60
Longitudinal ribs	10	10
Genital coverflap length	15 (14–15)	12
Genital coverflap width	23 (22–24)	14

Remarks Eriophyes rotundae was described by Mohanasundaram (1983) on C. rotundus . The description of the male of this species was brief whereas immatures were never described. Therefore a detailed description for males and immatures are given herein. The Egyptian females differ from the India specimens in the following: number of ventral semiannuli 70 ( 74–77 in the Egyptian specimens); length of legs I and II 22 and 22, respectively (32–35 and 29–32, respectively in Egyptian specimens); opisthosomal setae are shorter for setae c2 20 ( 25 in the Egyptian specimens), d 15 ( 27 in the Egyptian specimens), and e 10 ( 13 in the Egyptian specimens); length and width of genital coverflap ( Table 2 ). A careful examination of Mohanasundaram's drawings shows that Setae d of Indian specimens is longer than setae c2 . So probably Mohanasundaram made a typo and this difference is negligible. The remaining differences may be because of the difference in environmental conditions, (genotype of the host plant, climatic conditions, plant physiology) at which slide preparation technique, operator skills, microscope quality, or the quality of the microscope equipment used.