Aculops Keifer 1966

Genus Aculops Keifer 1966 Type species: Vasates populivagrans Keifer 1953, ES 21, BCDA 42: 68, pl. 226, California, a deuterogynous species rusting leaves of Populus fremonti S. Wats. (Fremont cottonwood, Salicaceae). Junior synonyms: Azimaberoptus Chandrapatya 1993; Cecidobia Banks 1905; Pedaculops Manson 1984.Published as part of Rector, Brian G. & Petanović, Radmila U., 2012, A new species of Aculops (Acari: Prostigmata: Eriophyidae) from Serbia on Dipsacus laciniatus L. (Dipsacaceae), a weed target of classical biological control in the United States of America, pp. 59-66 in Zootaxa 3192 on page 60, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.21453

Pentasetacus plicatus Chetverikov & Petanović, 2016, n. sp.

<i>Pentasetacus plicatus</i> n. sp. Chetverikov & Petanović <p>(Fig. 1)</p> <p> <b>Female holotype</b>. Idiosoma vermiform, 264 long, 61 wide at the level of seta <i>c2</i>. <b>Prodorsal shield</b> subpentagonal 32 long x 49 wide, with short, subtriangular frontal lobe 3 long x 7 wide basally. Shield ornamentation weak and includes three short faint grooves (=median and two admedian lines) and two distinct ridges (=submedian I lines) in posterior half of shield. Indistinct medioposterior fovea (“median pit” <i>sensu</i> Keifer 1962, p. 16) near posterior prodorsal shield margin. Unpaired seta <i>vi</i> (10) inserted near base of frontal lobe, directed forward; <i>ve</i> 13, directed anterolaterad, tubercles 30 apart; <i>sc</i> 15, directed anterolaterad, tubercles 24 apart. Distance between tubercles <i>vi–ve</i> 15, <i>vi–sc</i> 18, <i>ve–sc</i> 12. Two indistinct eye-like structures (oval areas of thin cuticle) present anterolaterally to tubercules of <i>sc</i>. <b>Gnathosoma</b> elongate, directed forward and slightly ventrad, 29 long. Basal segment of palp 12 wide; palpcoxal apodeme 7 long; pedipalp coxal seta <i>ep</i> 5, pedipalp genual seta <i>d</i> 14, subapical pedipalp tarsal seta ν 1. <b>Subcapitular (suboral) plate</b> subtriangular, rounded anteriorly, 13 long, 20 wide, with two longitudinal lateral ridges. <b>Leg I</b> 27, tibia 5, <i>l'</i> 10, tibial solenidion <i>φ</i> 7; tarsus 6, <i>u’</i> 4, <i>ft’</i> 10, <i>ft’’</i> 20, <i>ω</i> 8 without knob; empodium 4/4- rayed, 6 long, each ray of three basal pairs with two additional secondary branches, terminal paired rays without additional branching; <i>l”</i> 24; <i>bv</i> 7. <b>Leg II</b> 23, tibia 4, <i>l'</i> absent; tarsus 5, <i>u’</i> 4, <i>ft’</i> 9, <i>ft’’</i> 20, <i>ω</i> 8 without knob; empodium 4/4-rayed, 5 long; <i>l”</i> 24; <i>bv</i> 5. <b>Coxae</b> ornamented with several short lines; coxal II apodemes distinct, extending up to the level of lateral angles of genital area. Setae <i>1b</i> 15 long, 12 apart; <i>1a</i> 39 long, 10 apart; <i>2a</i> 38 long, 25 apart. Prosternal apodeme not discerned; 4 coxigenital annuli (2 posterior ones complete, 2 anterior incomplete, i.e. segregated from lateral annuli) before epigynium. <b>Genital coverflap</b> semi-circular, smooth, 14 long x 21 wide; setae <i>3a</i> 10 long, 17 apart; pregenital plate absent; posterior genital cuticle framed by dense bandlike genital flange. <b>Opisthosoma</b> vermiform (nearly parallel-sided for most of its length), widest at the level of <i>c2</i> tubercles; 71 dorsal and 70 ventral annuli bearing small, pointed microtubercles. Setal lengths: <i>c1</i> 10, <i>c2</i> 14, <i>d</i> 13, <i>e</i> 7, <i>f</i> 30, <i>h1</i> 17, <i>h2</i> 67; 13 annuli between rear prodorsal shield margin and <i>c1</i> tubercles; 8 annuli from rear shield margin to <i>c2</i>; 13 annuli between <i>c2–d</i>; 17 annuli between <i>d</i> and <i>e</i>; 26 annuli between <i>e</i> and <i>f</i>; and 6 annuli between <i>f</i> and <i>h1</i>.</p> <p> <b>Male (n=3)</b>. Only three male specimens in good condition were available for measurement. In comparison to females, males are smaller; they have in average about 10 dorsal and 10 ventral annuli less than females, slightly shorter legs and opisthosomal setae (Table 1) and similar ornamentation of prodorsal shield (Fig. 2). Genital area ellipsoid, 12–14 long, 16–18 wide, flanked anteriorly by ribbon-like genital coverflap and laterally by two arc-like genital folds forming together genital rim (Fig. 3). In one male genital coverflap was thrown back so that gonopore was available for observation (Fig. 3 B). Tubercles of <i>3a</i> situated immediately behind posterior extremity of arc-like folds, <i>3a</i> 14–15 long. Genital opening situated under rounded medial flap of genital coverflap and limited posteriorly by three cuticular folds forming genital cone (Fig. 3 A,B); 3‒5 paired rounded ridges situated behind genital cone between tubercules of <i>3a.</i> CLSM indicated that setae <i>eu</i> were absent. Anterior genital apodeme is a thin narrow plate situated in frontal plane. Two posterior coxigenital annuli are thickened forming two pregenital ridges protruding inside from ventral cuticle (Fig. 3 C,D). Remnants of soft genital organs (ductus ejeculatorius, testis and paired vas deferens) similar to those recently described in <i>Pentasetacus araucariae</i> and <i>Trisetacus</i> sp. (Chetverikov <i>et al</i>. 2014, figs. 3, 12) and other eriophyoids (Chetverikov 2015, figs. 1,2) were observed under CLSM in one male (Fig. 3 E).</p> <p> <b>Immature instars (Fig. 4, Table 1)</b>. Only three dorso-ventrally oriented and appropriately cleared nymphs and one larva were available for investigation. The larva has notably broader and fewer ventral annuli than nymphs. A progenital chamber or any other structure resembling it (e.g. a fovea) is absent in immatures. In comparison to almost equally dorso-ventrally annulated females and males, immatures have considerably fewer numbers of ventral annuli (49‒53 in nymphs and 33 in larva) than number of dorsal annuli (54‒65 in nymphs and 57 in larva); additionally the frontal lobe is absent in immatures. Eye-like structures are more distinct in immatures than in adults, but the medio-posterior fovea on the prodorsal shield is more clearly seen in adults than in immatures.</p> <p> <b>Host plant and relation to the host</b>. <i>Araucaria araucana</i> (Molina) K.Koch, commonly known as “monkey puzzle tree”. Twigs of <i>A. araucana</i> were inspected under a stereomicroscope; neither eriophyoid mites nor distinct damages of leaves, buds or stem were found. However when the plant material was processed using extraction method numerous <i>P. plicatus</i> <b>n. sp.</b> mites were found, suggesting that these mites are probably needle vagrant.</p> <p> <b>Type locality</b>. Chile, Valparaíso Region, Vina del Mar, City Park.</p> <p> <b>Type material</b>. About 60 mites (females, males and immatures) in 50 slides collected in Chile, Vina del Mar, 28 March 2012, coll. Ž. Tomanović and V. Žikić. Type material is divided in two parts: half of the slides (including holotype) are kept at the Zoological Institute of RAS and the others are deposited in the collection of Prof. R. Petanović in Belgrade University.</p> <p> <b>Additional material</b>. Five females of <i>P. plicatus</i> <b>n. sp.</b> in five slides collected from twigs of <i>A. araucana</i> collected Peru, Cusco Region, Calca Prov., Pisac, 25 March 2012, coll. Ž. Tomanović and V. Žikić.</p> <p> <b>Etymology</b>. The specific epithet, <i>plicatus</i>, is an adjective, gender masculine, corresponding to the uncommon cuticular folds in male postgenital area in this species.</p> <p> <b>Differential diagnosis</b>. <i>P. plicatus</i> <b>n. sp.</b> is the second described species of the genus <i>Pentasetacus</i>. It differs from the type species of the genus (<i>P. araucariae</i>) in ornamentation of prodorsal shield, topography of male genital area, presence/absence of progenital chamber in immatures and several morphometrics (Table 2).</p> <p>Characters Mite species</p> <p> 1. Indicated as “pregenital plate” in redescription of <i>P. araucariae</i> (Fig. 7 on page 133 in Chetverikov <i>et al</i>. 2014)</p>Published as part of <i>Chetverikov, Philipp E. & Petanović, Radmila U., 2016, Description of a new early-derivative mite, Pentasetacus plicatus n. sp. (Acariformes, Eriophyoidea), and remarks on the systematic position of pentasetacines, pp. 211-226 in Zootaxa 4144 (2)</i> on pages 213-219, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4144.2.4, <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/267160">http://zenodo.org/record/267160</a&gt

Pentasetacus Schliesske 1985

Genus <i>Pentasetacus</i> Schliesske, 1985 <p> <b>Diagnosis</b>. Dorso-ventrally equally annulated worm-like eriophyoids with five prodorsal shield setae (unpaired <i>vi</i>, paired <i>sc</i> and paired <i>ve</i>), large longitudinal bridge and spermathecal apparatus inserted midway. Spermathecal tubes short, spermathecae spherical. One medioposterior pit may be present near rear margin of prodorsal shield. Short triangular frontal lobe precedes seta <i>vi</i>. Setae <i>eu</i> absent in all stages.</p> <p> <b>Type species</b>. <i>Pentasetacus araucariae</i> (Schliesske, 1985)</p> <p> <b>Described species</b>. <i>P. araucariae</i> (Schliesske, 1985) and <i>P. plicatus</i> <b>n. sp.</b></p> <p> <b>Plant hosts</b>. Vagrant or concealed (gall-forming) on Araucariaceae; currently found only on <i>Araucaria araucana</i> (Molina) K. Koch</p> <p> <b>Distribution</b>. South America (Chile and Peru).</p>Published as part of <i>Chetverikov, Philipp E. & Petanović, Radmila U., 2016, Description of a new early-derivative mite, Pentasetacus plicatus n. sp. (Acariformes, Eriophyoidea), and remarks on the systematic position of pentasetacines, pp. 211-226 in Zootaxa 4144 (2)</i> on page 213, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4144.2.4, <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/267160">http://zenodo.org/record/267160</a&gt

Systematic remarks on eriophyoid mites from the subfamily Phytoptinae Murray, 1877 (Acari: Eriophyoidea: Phytoptidae)

Chetverikov, Philipp E., Petanović, Radmila U., Sukhareva, Sogdiana I. (2009): Systematic remarks on eriophyoid mites from the subfamily Phytoptinae Murray, 1877 (Acari: Eriophyoidea: Phytoptidae). Zootaxa 2070: 63-68, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18707

Oziella Amrine, Stasny and Flechtmann 2003

Genus <i>Oziella</i> Amrine, Stasny and Flechtmann, 2003 <p> <i>O</i>. <i>yuccae</i> (Keifer, 1954) Amrine 2003</p> <p> <i>Phytoptus yuccae</i> Keifer, 1954:121, fig. 233</p> <p> Host plant: <i>Yucca glauca</i> Nutt. (Agavaceae)</p> <p>Localisation: in the center leaf whorl at the point where the leaves emerge from the bud Distribution: North America (USA, Kansas)</p> <p> <i>O</i>. <i>nilotica</i> (Abou-Awad, 1981) <b>comb. n.</b></p> <p> <i>Phytocoptella niloticus</i> Abou-Awad, 1981:368, fig. 2 Host plant: <i>Imperata cylindrica</i> (L.) Beauv. (Poaceae) Localisation: in the leaves, no damage</p> <p>Distribution: North Africa (Egypt)</p> <p> <i>O</i>. <i>gigantica</i> (Moh., 1981) <b>comb. n.</b></p> <p> <i>Anhchiphytoptus</i> <i>giganticus</i> Mohanasundaram, 1981:11, fig. 1 Host plant: <i>Cyperus rotundus</i> (Cyperaceae) Localisation: under the leaf sheath, no damage Distribution: South India</p> <p> <i>O</i>. <i>rufensis</i> (Manson, 1970) Amrine 2003</p> <p> Manson 1970:531, fig.1; 1984:24, 86 fig. 24-31 Host plant: <i>Luzula rufa</i> var. <i>rufa</i> (Juncaceae)</p> <p>Localisation: the mites cause deformation of flower heads and shoot apices Distribution: New Zealand</p>Published as part of <i>Chetverikov, Philipp E., Petanović, Radmila U. & Sukhareva, Sogdiana I., 2009, Systematic remarks on eriophyoid mites from the subfamily Phytoptinae Murray, 1877 (Acari: Eriophyoidea: Phytoptidae), pp. 63-68 in Zootaxa 2070</i> on page 66, DOI: <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/187077">10.5281/zenodo.187077</a&gt

Phytoptus Dujardin 1851

Genus <i>Phytoptus</i> Dujardin, 1851 <p> <i>Anchiphytoptus</i> Keifer, 1952:31 <b>syn. n.</b></p> <p> <i>Phytoptus lineatus</i> (Keifer, 1952) <b>comb. n.</b></p> <p> <i>Anchiphytoptus lineatus</i> Keifer, 1952:31, fig. 210 Host plant: <i>Cercocarpus ledifolius</i> Nuttall (Rosaceae) Localisation: in buds (?), no damage</p> <p>Distribution: North America (USA, California)</p> <p> <i>Phytoptus beeri</i> (Keifer, 1957) <b>comb. n.</b></p> <p> <i>Anchiphytoptus beeri</i> Keifer, 1957:242, fig. 249 Host plant: <i>Beaucarnea stricta</i> Lem. (Liliaceae) Localisation: in the leaf bases, no damage</p> <p>Distribution: North America (Mexico)</p> <p> <i>Phytoptus chamaebatiae</i> (Keifer, 1975) <b>comb. n.</b></p> <p> <i>Anchiphytoptus chamaebatiae</i> Keifer, 1975:19, fig. 10</p> <p> Host plant: <i>Chamaebatia foliosa</i> Bentham (Rosaceae)</p> <p>Localisation: under lower bracts on current seasons growth, no damage Distribution: North America (USA, California, El Dorado)</p>Published as part of <i>Chetverikov, Philipp E., Petanović, Radmila U. & Sukhareva, Sogdiana I., 2009, Systematic remarks on eriophyoid mites from the subfamily Phytoptinae Murray, 1877 (Acari: Eriophyoidea: Phytoptidae), pp. 63-68 in Zootaxa 2070</i> on pages 65-66, DOI: <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/187077">10.5281/zenodo.187077</a&gt

Data from: Morphological variation in different populations of Aceria anthocoptes (Acari: Eriophyoidea) associated with the Canada thistle, Cirsium arvense, in Serbia

The russet mite, Aceria anthocoptes (Nal.), is the only eriophyid that has been recorded on Canada thistle, Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. It has been noted in several European countries and recently in the USA. With its apparent host specificity and because of the damage it causes to its host plant, A. anthocoptes is being studied as a potential candidate for classical biological control. The aim of the present study was to examine quantitative morphological traits in four populations of A. anthocoptes living on two infraspecific host plant taxa (C. arvense var. arvense and C. arvense var. vestitum) in two geographically separate areas of Serbia in order to test the hypothesis of absence of the possible host plant impact on mite morphology. MANOVA analysis revealed significant differences between populations from different localities in Serbia. Populations of A. anthocoptes inhabiting two thistle varieties in the vicinity of Belgrade differed significantly from mites inhabiting the same two host varieties in the vicinity of the town of Ivanjica. Canonical discriminant analysis showed that the trait which best discriminates the populations of A. anthocoptes is the number of dorsal annuli. It was not possible to ascribe morphological differences to the impact of the host plant

Oziella Amrine, Stasny and Flechtmann 2003

Genus: Oziella Amrine, Stasny and Flechtmann 2003 Diagnosis. Phytoptine mites with fused femur and genu on legs I–II, and bearing tibial φ and opisthosomal seta c 1.Published as part of Chetverikov, Philipp E., Beaulieu, Frédéric, Cvrković, Tatjana, Vidović, Biljana & Petanović, Radmila U., 2012, Oziella sibirica (Acari: Eriophyoidea: Phytoptidae), a new eriophyoid mite species described using confocal microscopy, COI barcoding and 3 D surface reconstruction, pp. 41-60 in Zootaxa 3560 on page 44, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.21362

Phytoptinae

Subfamily: Phytoptinae Murray Diagnosis. Phytoptids with opisthosoma vermiform and with annuli dorsoventrally subequal in size and number; two pairs of prodorsal shield setae (anterior ve and posterior sc); tibial solenidion φ and opisthosomal setae c 1 usually present; spermathecal tubes relatively short.Published as part of Chetverikov, Philipp E., Beaulieu, Frédéric, Cvrković, Tatjana, Vidović, Biljana & Petanović, Radmila U., 2012, Oziella sibirica (Acari: Eriophyoidea: Phytoptidae), a new eriophyoid mite species described using confocal microscopy, COI barcoding and 3 D surface reconstruction, pp. 41-60 in Zootaxa 3560 on page 44, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.21362