Perscheloribates Paratzitzikamaensis N. Sp., With Supplementary Descriptions Of Scheloribates Elegans And Monoschelobates Parvus (Acari, Oribatida, Scheloribatidae) From Ecuador Author Ermilov, S. G. Author Sandmann, D. Author Marian, F. Author Maraun, M. text Acarologia 2013 2013-12-19 53 4 429 437 http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/acarologia/20132104 journal article 7352 10.1051/acarologia/20132104 33ac15ab-586e-4c99-bf8e-f1c629a9aa35 2107-7207 4639969 Monoschelobates parvus Balogh and Mahunka, 1969 ( Figure 3 ) Diagnosis — Body size: 282 – 315 × 166 – 199. Rostrum rounded. Prodorsal setae long, setiform, barbed. Sensilli clavate, weakly barbed. Translamellar line represented by rudimentary parts. Prolamellar lines present. Notogaster with ten pairs of short setae. Aggenital setae absent. Leg claws serrate on dorsal side. Description — Measurements. Body length: 282-315 (six specimens); notogaster width: 166-199 (six specimens). Integument — Body color light brown. Body surface smooth. Prodorsum — Rostrum rounded. Lamellae located dorso-laterally, as long as half of prodorsum (in lateral view), without cusps. Translamellar line represented by rudimentary parts near to lamellae. Prolamellar and sublamellar lines distinct. Sublamellar porose areas ( Al ) very small (2 – 4 × 1 – 2), oval. Rostral (28-32), lamellar (36-45) and interlamellar (61 – 65) setae setiform, barbed. Sensilli (53 – 65) clavate, with well dilated head, having small barbs. Exobothridial setae (2) minute. A pair of elongate, narrow porose areas present (visible in dissected specimens) latero-posterior to interlamellar setae. Notogaster — Anterior notogastral margin convex medially. Dorsophragmata small. Ten pairs of thin, smooth notogastral setae present; setae c and la (8) slightly longer than others (4 – 6). Four pairs of sacculi ( Sa , S1 , S2 , S3 ) oval, with small openings. Epimeral and lateral podosomal regions — Apodemes 1, 2, 3 and sejugal apodemes distinct. Epimeral setal formula: 3-1-3-3. Setae setiform, thin, smooth; medial setae 1a , 2a , 3a (4) shorter than others (8 – 12). Pedotecta I large, convex, pedotecta II rounded anteriorly. Discidia rounded distally. Circumpedal carinae distinct. FIGURE 3: Monoschelobates parvus Balogh and Mahunka, 1969 : A – body dorsally; B – body ventrally (gnathosoma and legs not illustrated); C – prodorsum and anterior part of notogaster laterally (gnathosoma and legs not illustrated); D – lamellar seta; E – sensillus; F – pedotectum II, discidium and epimeral setae 3c , 4c in dissected specimen; G – left genital plate and epimaral setae 3a , 4b ; H – left anal plate and adanal setae ad 1 - ad 3 ; I – claw on leg I. Scale bars (A-C) 50 µm, scale bar (D-F, I) 10 µm, scale bar (G, H) 10 µm. Anogenital region — Four pairs of genital (4), two pairs of anal (4) and three pairs of adanal (8 – 12) setae setiform, thin, smooth. Aggenital setae absent. Lyrifissures iad in paraanal position. Legs — Each claw with several minute barbs on dorsal side. Formulae of leg setation and solenidia: I (1-5-3-4-19) [1-2-2], II (1-5-2-4-15) [1-1-2], III (2-3- 1-3-15) [1-1-0], IV (1-2-2-3-12) [0-1-0]; homology of setae and solenidia indicated in Table 1 . Material examined — Three specimens (two females and one male): Ec-1 ( 1.IV.2009 , collected by F. Marian). Three specimens (one female and two males): Ec-1 ( 1.X.2008 , collected by F. Marian). Remarks — Ecuadorian specimens of Monoschelobates parvus are similar in general appearance to Brazilian specimens ( Balogh and Mahunka 1969 ; Balogh and Balogh 1990 ), but there is a clear difference: prolamellar lines present versus absent in Brazilian specimens. Sometimes presence or absence of prolamellar lines or their partial development can vary in specimens of one species in Scheloribatidae : for example, prolamellar lines in Scheloribates fimbriatus Thor, 1930 - present (see Subbotina 1978 ), developed partially ( Mahunka 1987 ), indistinctly visible or absent (data of first author, based on specimens from Western Europe); similar situation is known for Scheloribates ( Bischeloribates ) mahunkai Subías, 2010 (Ermilov 2013) . Hence, we assume this difference to represent intraspecific variability in the case of M. parvus .