Siphonaptera of Canada

There are currently 154 species of fleas recorded in Canada in four superfamilies and seven families. Only two species have been added to the list since the previous summary by Holland (1979) one of which is unlikely to be established in Canada. There have been a number of significant nomenclatural changes since then most notable of which is the split of the Hystrichopsyllidae into two families Hystrichopsyllidae and Ctenophthalmidae. An additional 23 species may eventually be recorded based on presence of suitable hosts and proximity to known distributions. Six species are introduced and one species is adventive. Although total diversity is reasonably well known there are numerous gaps in distribution of fleas throughout the country. Barcode Index Numbers are available for only 22 species of fleas collected in Canada

Human Ophthalmomyiasis Interna Caused by Hypoderma tarandi, Northern Canada

Human myiasis caused by bot flies of nonhuman animals is rare but may be increasing. The treatment of choice is laser photocoagulation or vitrectomy with larva removal and intraocular steroids. Ophthalmomyiasis caused by Hypoderma spp. should be recognized as a potentially reversible cause of vision loss

Crop Updates 2006 - Oilseeds

This session covers thirteen papers from different authors: 1. INTRODUCTION, Graham Walton, CONVENOR, Department of Agriculture 2. The performance of new TT canola varieties in National Variety Testing (NVT) WA, Fiona Martin, Research Agronomist, Agritech Crop Research 3. Comparison of TT Canola Varieties in Oilseeds WA Trials – 2005, Collated by G.H. Walton, Department of Agriculture, WA, from a collaboration between Oilseeds WA, Seed Companies, Agronomists and Growers 4. An overview of the potential for a Biofuels Industry in Western Australia, Anne Wilkins and Nathan Hancock, Department of Agriculture 5. Retrieval of fertile progeny from interspecific crosses between Brassica napus and B. carinata using microspore culture, Matthew Nelson, Marie-Claire Castello, Linda Thomson, Anouska Cousin, Guijun Yan and Wallace Cowling; School of Plant Biology (M084), The University of Western Australia 6. Advances in canola blackleg epidemiology and its implication in understanding and managing the disease, Moin Salam, Bill MacLeod, Ravjit Khangura, Jean Galloway and Art Diggle, Department of Agriculture 7. Effect of fertiliser phosphorus and nitrogen on grain yields and concentration of oil and protein of canola grain, R.F. Brennan, M.D.A. Bolland, Department of Agriculture 8. Effect of applying fertiliser potassium and nitrogen on canola grain yields and concentration of oil and protein in grain, R.F. Brennan, M.D.A. Bolland, Department of Agriculture 9. Effect of fertiliser nitrogen and sulfer on canola yields and concentration of oil in grain, R.F. Brennan, M.D.A. Bolland, Department of Agriculture 10. Uptake of K from topsoil and subsoil by canola, P.M. Damon and Z. Rengel, Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, The University of WA 11. Accumulation of P and K by canola plants, Terry Rose, Zed Rengel and Qifu Ma, Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, The University of WA 12. Varied response from applying nitrogen at late flowering in canola! Dave Eksteen, Agronomist, United Farmers Cooperative 13. To investigate the timing, rate and placement of nitrogen on canola – Jerdacuttup 2005, Dave Eksteen, Agronomist, United Farmers Cooperativ

Acari of Canada

Summaries of taxonomic knowledge are provided for all acarine groups in Canada, accompanied by references to relevant publications, changes in classification at the family level since 1979, and notes on biology relevant to estimating their diversity. Nearly 3000 described species from 269 families are recorded in the country, representing a 56% increase from the 1917 species reported by Lindquist et al. (1979). An additional 42 families are known from Canada only from material identified to family- or genus-level. Of the total 311 families known in Canada, 69 are newly recorded since 1979, excluding apparent new records due solely to classification changes. This substantial progress is most evident in Oribatida and Hydrachnidia, for which many regional checklists and family-level revisions have been published. Except for recent taxonomic leaps in a few other groups, particularly of symbiotic mites (Astigmata: feather mites; Mesostigmata: Rhinonyssidae), knowledge remains limited for most other taxa, for which most species records are unpublished and may require verification. Taxonomic revisions are greatly needed for a large majority of families in Canada. Based in part on species recorded in adjacent areas of the USA and on hosts known to be present here, we conservatively estimate that nearly 10,000 species of mites occur in Canada, but the actual number could be 15,000 or more. This means that at least 70% of Canada’s mite fauna is yet unrecorded. Much work also remains to match existing molecular data with species names, as less than 10% of the ~7500 Barcode Index Numbers for Canadian mites in the Barcode of Life Database are associated with named species. Understudied hosts and terrestrial and aquatic habitats require investigation across Canada to uncover new species and to clarify geographic and ecological distributions of known species

Crop Updates 2002 - Farming Systems

This session covers forty one papers from different authors: INTRODUCTION 1. Future Farming Systems session for Crop Updates 2002 Peter Metcalf, FARMING SYSTEMS SUBPROGRAM MANAGER GRAINS PROGRAM Department of Agriculture 2. Perennial pastures in annual cropping systems: Lucerne and beyond, the ‘Big Picture’, Mike Ewing, Deputy CEO CRC for Plant-based Management of Dryland Salinity, Department of Agriculture 3. Perennial pastures in annual cropping systems: lucerne and beyond, Roy Latta and Keith Devenish, Department of Agriculture 4. Establishing Lucerne with a cover crop, Diana Fedorenko1, Clayton Butterly1, Chantelle Butterly1, Kim and Neil Diamond2, Stuart McAlpine2, Bill Bowden1, Jessica Johns3, 1Centre for Cropping Systems, Northam, 2Farmer, Buntine, 3Department of Agriculture 5. Overcropping: Chemical suppression of Lucerne, Terry Piper1, Diana Fedorenko1, Clayton Butterly1, Chantelle Butterly1, Stuart McAlpine2, Jessica Johns3, 1Centre for Cropping Systems, Northam, 2Farmer, Buntine, 3Department of Agriculture 6. Overcropping: Effect of Lucerne density on crop yield, Diana Fedorenko1, Bill Bowden1, Clayton Butterly1, Chantelle Butterly1, Stuart McAlpine2, Terry Piper1,1Centre for Cropping Systems, Department of Agriculture, Northam, 2Farmer, Buntine 7. Residual effect of weed management in the third year of Lucerne on the following wheat crop, Diana Fedorenko1, Clayton Butterly1, Chantelle Butterly1, Stuart McAlpine2,Terry Piper1, David Bowran1, Jessica Johns3,1Centre for Cropping Systems, Northam, 2Farmer, Buntine, 3Department of Agriculture 8. Production of Lucerne and serradella in four soil types, Diana Fedorenko1 Clayton Butterly1, Chantelle Butterly1, Robert Beard2 1Centre for Cropping Systems, Department of Agriculture, 2Farmer, Cunderdin 9. The effect of spray topping on newly established Lucerne, Keith Devenish, Agriculture Western Australia 10. Leakage from phase rotations involving Lucerne, Phil Ward, CSIRO Plant Industry 11. Fungal diseases present in Western Australian Lucerne crops, Dominie Wright and Nichole Burges, Department of Agriculture 12. Survey of Western Australian Lucerne stands reveals widespread virus infection, Roger Jones and Danae Harman, Crop Improvement Institute, Department of Agriculture, and Centre for Legumes in Mediterranean Agriculture, University of WA ANNUAL PASTURE SYSTEMS 13. The use of Twist Fungus as a biosecurity measure against Annual Ryegrass Toxicity (ARGT), Greg Shea, GrainGuard Coordinator and George Yan, Biological and Resource Technology 14.Limitations and opportunities for increasing water use by annual crops and pastures, David Tennant1, Phil Ward2and David Hall1 1Department of Agriculture, 2CSIRO, Plant Industries, Floreat Park 15. Developing pasture species mixtures for more productive and sustainable cropping systems – 2001 crop performance, Anyou Liu, Clinton Revell and Candy Hudson, Centre for Cropping Systems, Department of Agriculture 16. Developing pasture species mixtures for more productive and sustainable cropping systems – weed management in regenerating mixtures, Anyou Liu and Clinton Revell, Centre for Cropping Systems, Department of Agriculture 17. Aphid tolerance of annual pasture legumes, Andrew Blake, Natalie Lauritsen, Department of Agriculture 18. Selecting the right variety for phase pasture systems, Keith Devenish, Department of Agriculture 19. Responses of alternative annual pasture and forage legumes to challenge with infectious subterranean clover mottle virus, John Fosu-Nyarko, Roger Jones, Lisa Smith, Mike Jones and Geoff Dwyer, State Agricultural Biotechnology Centre and Centre for Bioinformatics and Biological Computing, Murdoch University, Department of Agriculture, and Centre for Legumes in Mediterranean Agriculture SOIL AND LAND MANAGEMENT 20. Nutrition in 2002: Decisions to be made as a result of last season, Bill Bowden,Western Australia Department of Agriculture 21. Profitability of deep banding lime, Michael O\u27Connell, Chris Gazey and David Gartner, Department of Agriculture 22. Lime efficiency percentage…the new measure of lime effectiveness for Western Australia, Amanda Miller, Department of Agriculture 23. Boron – should we be worried about it, Richard W. BellA, K. FrostA, Mike WongBand Ross BrennanC ASchool of Environmental Science, Murdoch University, BCSIRO Land and Water, CDepartment of Agriculture 24. Impact of claying and other amelioration on paddock profit, N.J. Blake1, G. McConnell2, D. Patabendige1and N. Venn11Department of Agriculture, 2PlanFarm P/L 25. Raised bed farming in the 2001 growing season, Derk Bakker, Greg Hamilton, Dave Houlbrooke and Cliff Spann, Department of Agriculture 26. Economics of tramline farming systems, Paul Blackwell and Bindi Webb, Department of Agriculture, Stuart McAlpine, Liebe Group. 27. Relay planting from Tramlines to increase water use and productivity os summer crops, Dr Paul Blackwell, Department of Agriculture, Neil and Kim Diamond, Buntine. Liebe Group 28.Evidence-based zone management of paddock variability to improve profits and environmental outcomes, M.T.F. WongA, D. PatabendigeB, G. LyleA and K. WittwerA ACSIRO Land and Water, BDepartment of Agriculture 29. How much soil water is lost over summer in sandy soils? Perry Dolling1, Senthold Asseng2, Ian Fillery2, Phil Ward2and Michael Robertson3 1University of Western Australia/Department of Agriculture Western Australia/CSIRO, 2CSIRO Plant Industry 3CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, Indooroopilly, Queensland FARMER DECISION SUPPORT AND ADOPTION 30. Economic comparisons of farming systems for the medium rainfall northern sandplain, No 1, Caroline Peek and David Rogers, Department of Agriculture 31. Sensitivity analysis of farming systems for the medium rainfall northern sandplain No 2, Caroline Peek and David Rogers, Department of Agriculture 32. Transition analysis of farming systems in the medium rainfall northern sandplain. No 3, Caroline Peek and David Rogers, Department of Agriculture 33. Implementing on-farm quality assurance, Peter Portmann, Manager Research and Development, The Grain Pool of Western Australia 34. On-farm research – principles of the ‘Test As You Grow’ kit, Jeff Russell, Department of Agriculture 35. Broadscale wheat variety comparisons featuring Wyalkatchem, Jeff Russell, Department of Agriculture 36. GrainGuardÔ - A biosecurity plan for the Canola Industry,Greg Shea Department of Agriculture 37. Are Western Australian broadacre farms efficient? Ben Henderson, University of Western Australia, Ross Kingwell, Department of Agriculture and University of Western Australia DISEASE MODELLING WORKSHOP 38. WORKSHOP: Pest and disease forecasts for you! An interactive forum, Tresslyn Walmsley, Jean Galloway, Debbie Thackray, Moin Salam and Art Diggle, Centre for Legumes in Mediterranean Agriculture and Department of Agriculture 39. Blackspot spread: Disease models are based in reality (Workshop paper 1), JeanGalloway,Department of Agriculture 40. Blackspot spread: Scaling-up field data to simulate ‘Baker’s farm’ (Workshop paper 2), Moin U. Salam, Jean Galloway, Art J. Diggle and William J. MacLeod, Department of Agriculture, Western Australia 41. A decision support system for control of aphids and CMV in lupin crops (Workshop paper 3), Debbie Thackray, Jenny Hawkes and Roger Jones, Centre for Legumes in Mediterranean Agriculture and Department of Agricultur

Impact of primary kidney disease on the effects of empagliflozin in patients with chronic kidney disease: secondary analyses of the EMPA-KIDNEY trial

Background: The EMPA KIDNEY trial showed that empagliflozin reduced the risk of the primary composite outcome of kidney disease progression or cardiovascular death in patients with chronic kidney disease mainly through slowing progression. We aimed to assess how effects of empagliflozin might differ by primary kidney disease across its broad population. Methods: EMPA-KIDNEY, a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial, was conducted at 241 centres in eight countries (Canada, China, Germany, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, the UK, and the USA). Patients were eligible if their estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was 20 to less than 45 mL/min per 1·73 m2, or 45 to less than 90 mL/min per 1·73 m2 with a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (uACR) of 200 mg/g or higher at screening. They were randomly assigned (1:1) to 10 mg oral empagliflozin once daily or matching placebo. Effects on kidney disease progression (defined as a sustained ≥40% eGFR decline from randomisation, end-stage kidney disease, a sustained eGFR below 10 mL/min per 1·73 m2, or death from kidney failure) were assessed using prespecified Cox models, and eGFR slope analyses used shared parameter models. Subgroup comparisons were performed by including relevant interaction terms in models. EMPA-KIDNEY is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03594110. Findings: Between May 15, 2019, and April 16, 2021, 6609 participants were randomly assigned and followed up for a median of 2·0 years (IQR 1·5–2·4). Prespecified subgroupings by primary kidney disease included 2057 (31·1%) participants with diabetic kidney disease, 1669 (25·3%) with glomerular disease, 1445 (21·9%) with hypertensive or renovascular disease, and 1438 (21·8%) with other or unknown causes. Kidney disease progression occurred in 384 (11·6%) of 3304 patients in the empagliflozin group and 504 (15·2%) of 3305 patients in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·71 [95% CI 0·62–0·81]), with no evidence that the relative effect size varied significantly by primary kidney disease (pheterogeneity=0·62). The between-group difference in chronic eGFR slopes (ie, from 2 months to final follow-up) was 1·37 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year (95% CI 1·16–1·59), representing a 50% (42–58) reduction in the rate of chronic eGFR decline. This relative effect of empagliflozin on chronic eGFR slope was similar in analyses by different primary kidney diseases, including in explorations by type of glomerular disease and diabetes (p values for heterogeneity all >0·1). Interpretation: In a broad range of patients with chronic kidney disease at risk of progression, including a wide range of non-diabetic causes of chronic kidney disease, empagliflozin reduced risk of kidney disease progression. Relative effect sizes were broadly similar irrespective of the cause of primary kidney disease, suggesting that SGLT2 inhibitors should be part of a standard of care to minimise risk of kidney failure in chronic kidney disease. Funding: Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and UK Medical Research Council

Amerodectes pheucticus Mironov & Galloway 2021, sp. n.

Amerodectes pheucticus sp. n. (Figs. 8–10) Type material. Male holotype, 16 male and 19 female paratypes from the Rose-breasted Grosbeak, Pheucticus ludovicianus (Linnaeus, 1766) (Passeriformes: Cardinalidae), (RBGR/122/PWRC/15; SM 2621), CANADA, Manitoba, Winnipeg, 10 May 2015, coll. T.D. Galloway and C.R. Wushke. Depository. Holotype, 5 male and 5 female paratypes — CNC, remaining paratypes — WRME and ZISP. Description. MALE (holotype, range for 10 paratypes in parentheses) (Figs. 8, 10 A-E). Idiosoma, length × width, 400 (375–410) × 160 (155–165), length of hysterosoma 255 (250–280). Prodorsal shield: entire, anterolateral extensions pointed, lateral margins slightly concave at level of scapular setae, posterior margin with a pair of wide and shallow concavities, posterior corners pointed, surface with small ovate lacunae in anterior part, length 120 (110–125), width 115 (105–115). Setae ve rudimentary, represented by alveoli. Bases of scapular setae se separated by 55 (50–55). Scapular shields narrow, barely developed dorsally. Humeral shields represented by narrow longitudinal sclerites situated ventrolaterally. Bases of setae cp touching ventral margin of humeral shields; setae c2 on striated tegument. Subhumeral setae c3 lanceolate, 30 (28–30) long, about 7.5 (7.5–8) wide. Hysteronotal shield: anterior margin slightly concave, anterior corners rounded, surface with minute circular lacunae, greatest length 255 (245–260), width at anterior margin 105 (105–110). Distance between prodorsal and hysteronotal shields about 20–25. Opisthosomal lobes approximately as long as wide at base; posterior margins of lobes roughly rounded, with short and blunt extensions at bases of setae h2 and h3. Terminal cleft shaped as a wide U with strongly divergent branches, 28 (26–28) long. Supranal concavity semicircular. Setae f2 anterior to bases of setae ps2. Setae h1 situated at level of supranal concavity. Setae h3 narrowly lanceolate, 48 (45–48) long; setae ps2 105 (95–105) long. Setae ps1 filiform, about 5 long, situated on margin of terminal cleft at level of setae ps2. Distances between dorsal setae: c2:d2 100 (95–105), d2:e2 95 (90–100), e2:h3 53 (48–55), d1:d2 32 (32–38), e1: e2 35 (33–35), h1:ps2 20 (20–22), h2:h2 60 (55–65), h3:h3 40 (40–45), ps2:ps2 73 (70–75). Epimerites I fused into a V, fused part with a pair of short and acute lateral extensions and small acute median extension. Coxal fields I, II without extensively sclerotized areas. Rudimentary sclerites rEpIIa barely distinguishable or absent. Coxal fields I–III open. Coxal fields IV without sclerotized areas at bases of trochanters IV. Epimerites IVa absent. Genital arch of moderate size, 27 (26–28) × 47 (45–47); aedeagus sword-shaped, 86 (80–86) long, extending to anterior end of anal opening; basal sclerite of genital apparatus shaped as transverse plate with slightly concave posterior margin (Fig. 10A). Genital papillae not connected at bases. Genital and adanal shields absent. Adanal suckers 15 (15–16) in diameter, corolla smooth, surrounding membrane with radial striae. Opisthoventral shields occupying lateral areas of opisthosoma and distal half of opisthosomal lobes; inner margins of these shields with small rounded extensions bearing setae ps3, anterior border of these shields covering opisthosomal lobes with short truncate extension. Setae 4b situated posterior to level of setae 3a, setae ps3 at midlevel of adanal suckers. Distance between ventral setae: 3a:4b 8 (8–12), 4b:4a 45 (40–45), 4a:g 48 (45–50), g:ps3 63 (58–60), ps3:ps3 68 (65–68), ps3:h3 38 (34–40). Femora I, II with narrow ventral crests, other segments of legs I, II without processes (Fig. 10B, C). Solenidion σ of genu I half as along as this segment and situated at its midlevel. Genual setae cG I, II and mG I filiform, setae mG II slightly thickened basally. Setae d of tarsi II, III much shorter than corresponding setae f. Solenidion φ of tibia IV extending to proximal margin of ambulacral disc. Tarsus IV 25 (25–26) long, without apical process; setae d and e button-like, seta d at midlength of this segment (Fig. 10E). Length of solenidia: ω1 I 12 (12–15), ω1 II 10 (10–11), σ I 13 (13–14), σ III 10 (9–11), φ IV 35 (28–35). FEMALE (range for 10 paratypes) (Figs. 9, 10F, G). Idiosoma, length × width, 530–565 × 175–205, length of hysterosoma 375–415. Prodorsal shield: entire, anterolateral extension long and pointed, lateral margins shallowly concave at level of scapular setae, posterior margin with wide and short median extension and a pair of shallow concavities, posterior corners pointed, posterior surface with minute, circular lacunae, 130–140 × 130–145. Setae ve rudimentary, represented by alveoli. Bases of setae se separated by 72–75. Scapular shields narrow, barely developed dorsally. Distance between prodorsal and hysteronotal shield 25–35. Humeral shields represented by narrow longitudinal sclerites, situated ventrolaterally. Setae cp touching ventral margins of humeral shields; c2 situated on striated tegument. Setae c3 lanceolate, 29–35 long, about 7.5–8 wide. Anterior and lobar parts of hysteronotal shield separated dorsally by narrow transverse band of soft tegument and weakly connected ventrolaterally. Anterior hysteronotal shield: nearly rectangular, slightly attenuate posteriorly, anterior margin concave, anterior corner slightly extended laterally, surface with small circular lacunae gradually decreasing in size from posterior to anterior where they become minute and almost indistinguishable, greatest length 285–300, width at anterior margin 125–135 (Fig. 9A). Length of lobar region 95–105, greatest width 95–105. Terminal cleft narrow V-shaped, 65–70 long, about 10 wide at apices. Lobar shield split longitudinally by narrow band of soft tegument, surface without ornamentation. Supranal concavity absent. Setae h1 on anterior margins of lobar pieces; setae h1 and f 2 in trapezoid arrangement. Setae h2 spindle-like, 52–56 × 7.5–8. Setae ps1 situated on inner margins of opisthosomal lobes, closer to lobar apices than to level of setae h2. Setae h3 20–23 long, about 1/5th the length of terminal appendages. Distances between dorsal setae: c2:d2 115–130, d2:e2 125–135, e2:h2 58–65, h2:h3 45–53, d1:d2 50–65, e1: e2 50–60, h1:h2 35–50, h1:h1 28–30, h2:h2 75–80, h2:ps1 25–30. Epimerites I fused into a V, fused part with short median extension (Fig. 9B). Lateral parts of coxal fields I, II without large sclerotized areas. Epimerites IVa absent. Translobar apodemes of opisthosomal lobes wide, not fused to each other anterior to terminal cleft. Epigynum with small lateral ledges, greatest width 68–85; apodemes of oviporus fused with epimerites IIIa. Pseudanal setae filiform, setae ps2 situated at level of posterior half of anal opening and widely separated from each other; distance between pseudanal setae: ps2:ps2 51–60, ps3:ps3 23–28, ps2:ps3 23–25. Head of spermatheca narrowly conical; primary spermaduct with small enlarged section near head of spermatheca; secondary spermaducts including their distal poorly sclerotized parts 35–40 long (Fig. 10G). Legs I, II as in male. Solenidion σ of genu I approximately half the length of this segment and situated at its midlevel. Genual setae cG I, II, mG I, II as in male. Setae d of tarsi II–IV much shorter than corresponding setae f. Genu IV dorsally inflated, with narrow dorsal crest. Lengths of solenidia: ω1 I 17–20, ω1 II 12–15, σ I 16–18, σ III 10–12, φ III 28–34, φ IV 8–11. Differential diagnosis. Amerodectes pheucticus sp. n. is close to A. passerinae Mironov and Chandler, 2017 from the Painted Bunting, Passerina ciris (Linnaeus, 1758) (Cardinalidae), in having the following: in both sexes, long spiculiform or narrowly lanceolate setae h3 (comparable in length to distance between them); in males, the aedeagus extending to the anterior end of anal slit, and the border of opisthoventral shields on lobes with a truncate denticle; and in females, the lobar shield split longitudinally. Amerodectes pheucticus differs by the following features: in males, the anterior part of the prodorsal shield has small ovate lacunae, the anterior corners of the hysteronotal shield are distinctly angular (not rounded), epimerites I are fused into a narrow U without any distinct stem, setae h3 are longer (45–48) and tarsus IV lacks an apical claw-like process; in females, the prodorsal shield has small circular lacunae in the posterior part; the lobar shields lack ornamentation and setae h1 are situated on the very margin of these shields. In males of A. passerinae, the prodorsal shield lacks ornamentation, the anterior corners of the hysteronotal shield are widely rounded, epimerites I are fused into a Y with a very short stem, setae h3 are shorter (35–38), and tarsus IV has a small apical claw-like process; in females, the prodorsal shield lacks ornamentation; each plate of the lobar shields has 2-3 circular lacunae in the anterior part, and setae h1 are distant from the anterior margins of these shields. Etymology. The specific epithet is taken from the generic name of the type host and is a noun in apposition.Published as part of Mironov, Sergey V. & Galloway, Terry D., 2021, Feather mites of the subfamily Pterodectinae (Acariformes: Proctophyllodidae) from passerines and kingfishers in Canada, pp. 1-55 in Zootaxa 5016 (1) on pages 16-20, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5016.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/522170

Alaudicola eremophila Mironov & Galloway 2021, sp. n.

Alaudicola eremophila sp. n. (Figs. 22–24) Material examined. Male holotype, 3 male and 11 female paratypes from the Horned Lark, Eremophila alpestris (Linnaeus, 1758) (Passeriformes: Alaudidae), (HOLA/525/PWRC/11, SM 2173), CANADA, Manitoba, Winnipeg, 22 October 2011, coll. T.D. Galloway and P.G. Snarr. Depository. Holotype, 1 male and 4 female paratypes — CNC, remaining paratypes — WRME and ZISP. Additional material. 7 males and 19 females from E. alpestris, (Z-2251), RUSSIA, Rostov Oblast, near Rostov-on-Don, 29 January 2013, coll. A.V. Zabashta. Description. MALE (holotype, range for 3 paratypes in parentheses) (Figs. 22, 24A–E). Idiosoma, length × width, 400 (365–415) × 200 (175–205), length of hysterosoma 250 (230–265). Prodorsal shield: occupying anterior two thirds of prodorsum, split into anterior and posterior parts by wide transverse band of soft tegument at level of scapular setae (se, si), anterolateral extensions pointed, total length of shield 97 (96–100), length of anterior part along midline 65 (62–67), length of posterior part 21 (20–25), width of posterior part 118 (112–122), its posterior margin uneven and slightly convex. Setae ve absent. Bases of scapular setae se separated by 60 (60–63). Scapular shields narrow, scarcely developed dorsally. Humeral shields represented by small roughly triangular sclerites situated dorsolaterally and bearing bases of setae c2; in some specimens these shields absent. Bases of setae cp and c2 situated on striated tegument. Subhumeral setae c3 spiculiform, 26 (24–27) long. Prodorsal and hysteronotal shields separated from each other by broad area of transversally striated soft tegument, length of this area 90 (80–90) and similar to the total length of prodorsal shield. Hysteronotal shield: anterior margin slightly concave, surface without ornamentation, greatest length 220 (210–230), width at anterior margin 150 (145–155). Opisthosomal lobes roughly trapezoidal, slightly shorter than wide at base; posterior margins of lobes truncate, without extensions at bases of setae h2 and h3. Terminal cleft approximately as equilateral triangle, 28 (25–33) long. Supranal concavity poorly outlined, extending to midlength between levels of setae e1 and e2. Setae c1 on anterior margin of hysteronotal shield or on striated tegument. Setae f2 slightly anterior to bases of setae ps2. Setae h1 situated at level of anterior end of terminal cleft. Setae h3 long spiculiform, 40 (38–40) long; setae ps2 65 (65–75) long. Setae ps1 filiform, about 10 long, situated on margin of terminal cleft at level of setae h2. Distances between dorsal setae: c2:d2 98 (90–105), d2:e2 83 (82–87), e2:h3 37 (37–48), d1:d2 30 (30–40), e1: e2 43 (38–44), h1:h2 28 (25–33), h2:h2 70 (67–73), h3:h3 48 (45–50), ps2:ps2 80 (80–83). Epimerites I fused into a V strongly narrowed posteriorly, fused part with a pair of minute lateral and one medial denticles. Coxal fields I, II without sclerotized areas. Rudimentary sclerites rEpIIa absent. Coxal fields I–III open. Coxal fields IV without sclerotized areas at bases of trochanters IV. Epimerites IVa present. Genital arch small, with sclerotized area connecting its tips shaped as a V, size of arch together with sclerotized area 23 (20–23) × 30 (28–32); aedeagus sword-shaped, 78 (76–80) long, extending to posterior margin of adanal suckers; basal sclerite of genital apparatus with posterior end large, U-shaped (Fig. 24A). Genital papillae rudimentary, not connected at bases, situated posterior to genital arch, approximately at midlevel of basal sclerite. Genital and adanal shields absent. Adanal suckers 13 (13–14) in diameter, corolla with 16–18 small denticles, surrounding membrane with radial striae. Opisthoventral shields large triangular, completely crossing bases of opisthosomal lobes forming translobar apodemes; setae ps3 situated in middle of these shields. Setae 4b situated posterior to level of setae 3a, setae ps 3 in centers of opisthosventral shields, approximately at level of anterior end of terminal cleft. Distance between ventral setae: 3a:4b: 18 (17–23), 4b:4a 38 (28–38), 4a:g 40 (38–42), g:ps3 50 (49–52), ps3:ps3 55 (48–55), ps3:h3 33 (28–33). Femora I with narrow ventral crests, other segments of legs I, II without processes (Fig. 24B, C). Solenidion σ of genu I half as along as this segment and situated in its anterior half. Genual setae cG I, II and mG I filiform, setae mG II slightly thickened basally. Setae d and f of tarsi II, III subequal in length. Solenidion φ of tibia IV extending to distal third of tarsus IV. Tarsus IV 30 (29–30) long, without apical process; setae d and e button-like, seta d in basal half of this segment (Fig. 24E). Length of solenidia: ω1 I 19 (18–20), ω1 II 13 (11–15), σ I 16 (15–18), σ III 12 (11–12), φIV 22 (20–23). FEMALE (range for 10 paratypes) (Fig. 23, 24F, G). Idiosoma, length × width, 515–565 × 215–225, length of hysterosoma 325–345. Prodorsal shield: split into two pieces as in male, anterolateral extensions long and pointed, total length of shield 112–125, length of anterior part along midline 75–80, length of posterior part 25–35, width of posterior part 135–150, its posterior margin unevenly sinuous. Setae ve absent. Bases of setae se separated by 78–85. Scapular shields narrow, developed dorsally in anterior part of prodorsum. Humeral shields shaped as small sclerites of irregular form, situated dorsolaterally, rarely absent. Setae c 2 in anteromedian angles of humeral shields or on stritated tegument. Setae cp on striated tegument. Setae c3 spiculiform, 28–30 long. Prodorsal and hysteronotal shields separated from each other by broad transversally striated area of soft tegument, length of this area 100–130. Anterior and lobar parts of hysteronotal shield separated dorsally by narrow transverse band of soft tegument. Anterior hysteronotal shield wide anteriorly and strongly attenuate posteriorly, anterior margin convex, surface without ornamentation, greatest length 240–260, and width at anterior margin 145–160 (Fig. 23A). Length of lobar region 58–68, greatest width 75–78; lobar apices widely rounded. Terminal cleft narrow V-shaped, 35–48 long. Lobar shield split longitudinally, area of soft tegument between its pieces small, triangular, surface without ornamentation. Supranal concavity poorly outlined. Setae h1 on lobar shields near their anterior margins; setae h1 and f 2 in trapezoidal arrangement. Setae h2 represented by macrosetae, strongly enlarged basally and gradually narrowing to filiform apex, 210–230 long. Setae ps1 situated on inner margins of opisthosomal lobes, close to lobar apices. Setae h3 13–15 long, about 1/5 the length of terminal appendages. Distances between dorsal setae: c2:d2 120–135, d2:e2 115–120, e2:h2 40–45, h2:h3 28–35, d1:d2 40–43, e1: e2 50–55, h1:h2 15–20, h1:h1 30–34, h2: h2 60–65, h2:ps1 16–20. Epimerites I fused into a U strongly narrowed posteriorly, fused part with minute median extension (Fig. 23B). Coxal fields I, II without large sclerotized areas. Epimerites IVa absent. Translobar apodemes of opisthosomal lobes present, narrow, not fused to each other anterior to terminal cleft. Epigynum without lateral ledges, greatest width 78–80; apodemes of oviporus fused with epimerites IIIa. Pseudanal setae filiform, setae ps3 at level of anterior 1/3rd of anal slit, setae ps2 situated at level of posterior end of anal slit and widely separated from each other (in some specimens absent); distance between pseudanal setae: ps2:ps2 48–55, ps3:ps3 25–35, ps2:ps3 28–33. Copulatory opening situated immediately posterior to anal opening. Head of spermatheca conical, proximal half of primary spermaduct monotonously enlarging to head of spermatheca, secondary spermaducts 18–20 long (Fig. 24G). Legs I, II as in male. Solenidion σ of genu I approximately half the length of this segment and situated at its midlevel. Genual setae cG I, II, mG I, II as in male. Seta d and f of tarsi II–IV subequal. Genu IV not inflated dorsally, with narrow dorsal crest. Lengths of solenidia: ω1 I 25–28, ω1 II 13–15, σ I 18–20, σ III 10–12, φ III 37–40, φ IV 8–10. Differential diagnosis. Alaudicola eremophila sp. n. is very similar to A. bilobatus (Robin, 1877) from the Eurasian Skylark, Alauda arvensis Linnaeus, in having the opisthosomal lobes short with a truncated or bluntly rounded posterior margin (Gaud & Atyeo 1996; Mironov 1996). Alaudicola eremophila differs from A. bilobatus by the following features: in males, the lateral margins of the terminal cleft are distinctly divergent, the terminal cleft is shaped as an equilateral triangle; in females, the secondary spermaducts are 18–20 long, setae ps3 situated approximately at the level of the anterior one third of the anal slit. In males of A. bilobatus, the lateral margins of the terminal cleft are almost parallel, the whole terminal cleft is nearly U-shaped, and 8–10 wide at midlength; in females, the secondary spermaducts are 25–30 long, and setae ps3 are situated approximately at the midlength of the anal slit or slightly posterior. Etymology. The specific epithet is taken from the generic name of the type host and is a noun in apposition. Remark. The new species described above was previously reported from E. alpestris in Canada (Galloway et al. 2014: 170) under the name A. bilobatus.Published as part of Mironov, Sergey V. & Galloway, Terry D., 2021, Feather mites of the subfamily Pterodectinae (Acariformes: Proctophyllodidae) from passerines and kingfishers in Canada, pp. 1-55 in Zootaxa 5016 (1) on pages 38-42, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5016.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/522170

Trouessartia petrochelidon Mironov & Galloway 2019, sp. n.

Trouessartia petrochelidon Mironov and Galloway, sp. n. (Figs. 13–15) Type material. Holotype male (CNC 758973), 10 male and 10 female paratypes from Petrochelidon pyrrhonota (Vieillot, 1817) (Passeriformes: Hirundinidae), CANADA, Manitoba, Starbuck, La Salle River, 21 June 2001, coll. T.D. Galloway. Depositories. Holotype, 4 male and 4 female paratypes—CNC, remaining paratypes—BMOC, WRME and ZISP. Description. MALE (holotype, ranges for 10 paratypes in parentheses) (Figs. 13, 15 A–F). Length of idiosoma from anterior end to lobar apices excluding lamellae 475 (420–475), width of idiosoma at level of humeral shields 210 (175–215). Length of hysterosoma from level of sejugal furrow to lobar apices 310 (270–310). Prodorsal shield: length along midline 145 (135–150), greatest width posterior to level of scapular setae 155 (140–155), anterior part at level of trochanters II not narrowed, antero-lateral extensions fused with bases of epimerites Ia between legs I and II, lateral margins not fused with scapular shields, posterior margin almost straight, surface with barely distinct small lacunae posterior to scapular setae. Internal scapular setae si thin spiculiform, 17 (15–18) long, separated by 75 (67–75); external scapular setae se separated by 125 (110–125). Setae c2 lanceolate, with rounded apex, 15 (15–17) long, situated in antero-median angle of humeral shields. Setae c3 narrowly lanceolate, with acute apex, 17 (15–18) long. Hysteronotal shield entire, prohysteronotal and lobar parts demarcated by deep lateral incisions, total length from anterior margin to lobar apices excluding lamellae 315 (270–315). Prohysteronotal shield: length along midline 220 (195–220), width at anterior margin 155 (130–155), lateral margins straight at level of trochanters III, DHA present, central area with barely distinct pattern of small circular lacunae. Posterior margin with bottle-shaped dark patch (supranal concavity). Dorsal setae d1 present, setae d2, e2, f2 absent. Length of lobar shield excluding terminal lamellae 95 (75–95). Apical parts of opisthosomal lobes strongly approximate, separated by small parallel-sided terminal cleft with almost touching lateral margins; length of cleft from anterior end to apices of terminal lamellae 45 (35–45). Terminal lamellae semi-ovate, with inner margins straight and touching, with rounded posterior margin, length from bases of setae h3 to lamellar apices 25 (20–25). Distance between dorsal setae: h2:h3 22 (20–23), h2:h2 45 (38–45), h3:h3 27 (25–28), h1:h2 10 (7–19), ps1:h3 7.5 (6–8). Epimerites I free. Rudimentary sclerites rEpIIa L-shaped. Genital apparatus situated between levels of trochanters III and IV, length excluding basal sclerite 45 (40–45), greatest width 40 (35–40). Epiandrum (pregenital sclerite) small. Latigenital sclerites present. Anterior genital papillae larger and noticeably distant from midline that posterior genital papillae equal. Setae g short, filiform, with bases distant from each other. Genital shield absent. Adanal apodemes heavily sclerotized, with barely distinct lateral membranes, without apophyses. Translobar apodeme absent. Adanal shields bearing setae ps3 absent. Anal suckers 11 (10–11) in diameter. Inner ends of epimerites IIIa with apices extending beyond level of setae 4b, and without extensions directed backward. Epimerites IVa long, with narrowed anterior ends fused with postero-lateral extension of intermedial sclerite. Setae 4b situated anterior to level of setae 3a; setae g anterior to level of setae 4a. Distance between ventral setae: 4b:3a 27 (25–28), 4b:g 82 (72–83), g:4a 10 (9–11), g:ps3 98 (90–98), g:g 11 (10–11), ps3: h3 82 (72–82). Setae cG, mG of genua I, II filiform. Genual solenidia σ 1 I and σ II in basal part of corresponding genua. Trochanteral setae sR III filiform, 17 (16–18) long. Legs IV with ambulacral disc extending to midlevel between setae h2 and h3. Tarsus IV 25 (25–28) long; modified setae d barrel-shaped, with discoid cap, situated in distal one thirds of this segment; modified setae e hemispheroid, without cap, situated apically (Fig. 15D). Length of solenidia: σ 1 I 25 (24–25), σ II 10 (10–12), σ III 17 (15–18), φ IV 25 (23–25). FEMALE (range for 10 paratypes) (Figs. 14A, B, 15 G–H). Length of idiosoma from anterior end to apices of hyaline lobar processes 475–515, width at level of humeral shields 190–210. Length of hysterosoma from level of sejugal furrow to apices of lobar processes 325–350. Prodorsal shield: shaped as in male, 135–150 long, 145–155 wide, surface with barely distinct circular lacunae in posterior part. Setae si thin spiculiform, 15–18 long, separated by 75–78; setae se separated by 115–120. Setae c2 lanceolate with rounded apex, 15–17 long, situated in anteromedial angle of humeral shields. Setae c3 narrowly lanceolate, with acute apex, 15–17 long. Hysteronotal shield: length from anterior margin to bases of setae h3 310–335, width at anterior margin 135–155, lateral margins straight at level of trochanters III, DHA present, median area from level of setae cp to supranal concavity with numerous ovate lacunae. Dorsal setae d1 present. Setae d2, e2, f2 absent. Setae h1 short filiform, about 10–12 long, situated antero-mesal to bases of setae h2, 12–15 from corresponding lateral margins of hysteronotal shield. Width of opisthosoma at level of setae h 2 12–15. Setae ps1 positioned dorsal, approximately equidistant from outer and inner margins of opisthosomal lobes. Supranal concavity open posteriorly into terminal cleft. Length of terminal cleft from anterior margin to lobar apices 110–125, length from free margin of interlobar membrane to apices 60– 68, width of cleft at level of setae h 3 10–12. Interlobar membrane occupying anterior 1/3rd of terminal cleft. External copulatory tube absent; copulatory opening situated ventrally at free margin of interlobar membrane. Distance between dorsal setae: h2:h3 45–50, h2:h2 55–60, h3:h 3 25–28, d1:gl 45–50, h1:h 2 12–13, h1:h1 35–38, ps1:h 3 22–28. Epimerites I free. Epigynum 35–40 long, 86–90 wide. Head of spermatheca with 5–6 rounded denticles, without collar; proximal part of primary spermaduct monotonously enlarged to head of spermatheca, distal part straight; secondary spermaducts 10–12 long (Fig. 15H). Posterior margins of epimerites IIIa with long narrow extension. Epimerites IVa present, long. Anal opening with adanal sclerites. Legs I, II as in males. Trochanteral setae sR III filiform, 27–30 long. Legs IV with ambulacral disc extending to level of setae ps1 (Fig. 15G). Length of solenidia: σ 1 I 22–25, σ II 7–10, σ III 15–18. Differential diagnosis. Trouessartia petrochelidon sp. n. belongs to the minutipes species group and is very similar to T. quarta Gaud and Atyeo, 1987 in having sclerites rEpIIa with acute inner ends and epimerites IVa fused with the base of the genital apparatus in males, and the distal end of the primary spermaduct straight and the external copulatory tube absent in females. Trouessartia petrochelidon differs from T. quarta by the following features: in both sexes, the posterior part of the prodorsal shield bears a faint ornamentation of small lacunae; in males, the terminal lamellae are longer (20–25 µm) and the idiosoma length is 420–475 µm (Figs. 13A, 15E); in females, the proximal part of the primary spermaduct is regularly enlarged toward the head of spermatheca (Fig. 15H). In both sexes of T. quarta, the prodorsal shield lacks any distinct ornamentation; in males, the terminal lamellae are 16–18 µm long, and the idiosomal length is 390–410 µm; in females, the primary spermaduct is enlarged unequally, its part between the head of spermathecal and secondary spermaducts is 2 times wider than the part distal to the secondary spermaducts (Fig. 21D). Etymology. The specific epithet is taken from the generic name of the host and is a noun in apposition.Published as part of Mironov, Sergey V. & Galloway, Terry D., 2019, Feather mites of the genus Trouessartia Canestrini (Acariformes: Trouessartiidae) from swallows (Passeriformes: Hirundinidae) in Canada, pp. 1-39 in Zootaxa 4568 (1) on pages 24-31, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4568.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/259911

Trouessartia piscicauda Gaud 1957

<i>Trouessartia piscicauda</i> Gaud, 1957 <p>(Figs. 16 D–F, 20C–E)</p> <p> <i>Trouessartia piscicauda</i> Gaud, 1957: 131, figs. 10B, 11C; Santana 1976: 84, figs. 195–199; Gaud & Atyeo 1986: 269, figs. 1f, 2f, 3e.</p> <p> <b>Material examined</b>: 6 males and 5 females (ZISP 7476–7482) from <i>Riparia riparia</i> (Linnaeus, 1758) (Passeriformes: Hirundinidae), <b>CANADA</b>, Manitoba, East Selkirk, 2 July 1999, coll. T.D. Galloway; 3 males and 10 females (ZISP 74 87–7499), same host species, <b>CANADA</b>, Manitoba, Oak Hammock Marsh, 17 July 1999, coll. T.D. Galloway.</p> <p> In the original description of this mite, <i>Hirundo rustica</i> was declared as the type host of this species (Gaud 1957). This association is considered questionable and most likely this record was the result of contamination. <i>Trouessartia piscicauda</i> is common to the sand martin, <i>R. riparia</i>, on which it was recorded throughout its range, in Europe, Africa, South East Asia, and North America (Cuba) (Gaud 1957; Černý 1967; Santana 1976; Gaud & Atyeo 1986).</p>Published as part of <i>Mironov, Sergey V. & Galloway, Terry D., 2019, Feather mites of the genus Trouessartia Canestrini (Acariformes: Trouessartiidae) from swallows (Passeriformes: Hirundinidae) in Canada, pp. 1-39 in Zootaxa 4568 (1)</i> on pages 10-11, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4568.1.1, <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/2599119">http://zenodo.org/record/2599119</a&gt