Eriophyes eremus, Druciarek, Tobiasz & Lewandowski, Mariusz, 2016

Druciarek, Tobiasz & Lewandowski, Mariusz, 2016, A new species of eriophyoid mite (Acari: Eriophyoidea) on Rosa sp. from Israel, Zootaxa 4066 (3), pp. 323-330 : 324-329

Eriophyes eremus n. sp.

( Figs 1–2 )

Diagnosis. Median line broken; admedian lines complete, slightly divergent, anteriorly curved and almost connected at their beginning with submedian lines; submedian line I and II short, only on anterior part of shield; shield with short lines and granules on lateral and posterior part. Tubercles of setae sc ahead of rear shield margin. Opisthosoma evenly rounded dorsally with 62–69 dorsal and 56–63 ventral annuli; annuli subequal dorso-ventrally with pointed microtubercles. Genital coverflap of female with 2-5 curved, diagonal ridges. Setae and tubercles h1 absent. Empodium entire 5–7-rayed.

Description. FEMALE ( Figs 1 and 2 ) holotype and 10 paratypes. Body vermiform, 209 (156–214); width 55 (40–59). Gnathosoma 20 (18–21), curved downward, dorsal pedipalpal genual setae d 4 (3–5), setae ep 2, setae v 1, cheliceral stylets 13 (12–15). Prodorsal shield 34 (31–35), 39 (31–39) wide, semicircular in anterior shape without frontal lobe. Shield pattern: median line broken; admedian lines complete, slightly divergent, anteriorly curved and almost connected with submedian lines; submedian line I and II short, only on anterior part of shield; shield with short lines and granules on lateral and posterior part. Tubercles of setae sc 2 (2–3) located ahead of rear shield margin, 18 (16–19) apart; scapular setae sc 17 (13–17). Legs with all usual segments and setae present. Leg I 24 (22–25); femur 7 (6–7), setae bv 10 (8–11), position of bv 3 (2–3); genu 5 (4–5), setae l” 20 (17–22), position of l” 2 (2–3); tibia 5 (5–6), setae l’ 7 (7–8), position of l’ 2; tarsus 6 (5–7), setae: ft” 20 (17–21), ft’ 14 (13–15), u’ 5 (4–6); solenidion 5; empodium simple 6 (5–6), bilaterally symmetrical, with 6 (5–7) rays. Leg II 23 (21–23); femur 7 (6–7), setae bv 9 (7–10), position of bv 3; genu 4 (4–5), setae l” 9 (8–11), position of l” 2 (2–3); tibia 5 (4– 5); tarsus 6, setae: ft” 19 (18–21), ft’ 6 (5–6), u’ 5 (4–5); solenidion 9 (8–10); empodium simple 5 (5–6), bilaterally symmetrical, with 6 (5–6) rays. Coxal plates smooth. Setae 1b 8 (7–8), 10 (10–11) apart; setae 1a 21 (19–24), 10 (9–11) apart; setae 2a 33 (24–36), 24 (23–26) apart; distance between setae 1b and 1a 7 (6–8), distance between setae 1a and 2a 9 (8–9). Prosternal apodeme 5 (5–7). External genitalia 13 (11–15), 23 (21–24) wide, genital coverflap with basal part granulated and with 3 (2–5) curved, diagonal ridges on posterior part; setae 3a 9 (7–10), 17 (16–18) apart. Opisthosoma with annuli subequal dorsoventrally, 66 (62–69) dorsal and 60 (56–63) ventral annuli, 4 (4–5) coxogenital annuli. Microtubercles placed on rear margin of annuli; pointed on dorsal and ventral side. Setae c2 24 (20–24), 50 (40–54) apart, on 8th (6–9) ventral annulus; setae d 57 (41–58), 34 (31–36) apart, on 18th (17–21) ventral annulus; e 10 (9–14), 20 (17–21) apart, on 32nd (30–36) ventral annulus; f 22 (19–23), 21 (18–22) apart, on 54th (50–57) ventral annulus, 7th (6–7) annulus from rear. Setae and tubercles h1 absent; setae h2 46 (40–54), 10 (8–10) apart.

MALE ( Fig. 2 ) (range of 5 specimens). Body vermiform, 155–195; width 51–59. Gnathosoma 19–20, curved downward, dorsal pedipalpal genual setae d 3–4, setae ep 2, setae v 1, cheliceral stylets 14–15. Prodorsal shield 28–33, 34–40 wide, semicircular in anterior shape without frontal lobe and pattern similar to that of female. Tubercles sc 2, located ahead of rear shield margin, 18–21 apart; scapular setae sc 12–14. Legs with all usual segments and setae present. Leg I 21–22; femur 6, setae bv 8–10, position of bv 3; genu 4, setae l” 14–19, position of l” 2–3; tibia 4–5, setae l’ 8–11, position of l’ 2; tarsus 5–6, setae: ft” 17–19, ft’ 9–13, u’ 4–6; solenidion 5; empodium simple 4–5, bilaterally symmetrical, with 5 paired rays. Leg II 20–21; femur 6, setae bv 7–8, position of bv 3; genu 4, setae l” 7–8, position of l” 2–3; tibia 3–4; tarsus 5–6, setae: ft” 14–20, ft’ 5–7, u’ 4–5; solenidion 7– 9; empodium simple 4–5, bilaterally symmetrical, with 5 paired rays. Coxal plates smooth. Setae 1b 5–8, 10–11 apart; setae 1a 13–17, 8–11 apart; setae 2a 24–27, 21–25 apart; distance between setae 1b and 1a 7–8, distance between setae 1a and 2a 7–9. Prosternal apodeme 4–5. External genitalia 14–16, 17–19 wide, surface below the eugenital setae with granules; setae 3a 5–8, 13–15 apart. Opisthosoma dorsally rounded, annuli subequal dorsoventrally; 57–63 dorsal annuli, 51–59 ventral annuli, 6–7 coxogenital annuli. Microtubercles placed on rear margin of annuli, pointed on dorsal and ventral side. Setae c 2 13–19, 42–53 apart, on 6–9th ventral annulus; d 39– 48, 32–37 apart, on 15–18th ventral annulus; e 7–10, 18–21 apart, on 27–31st ventral annulus; f 16–20, 18–20 apart, on 45–53rd ventral annulus, 6–7th annulus from rear. Setae and tubercles h1 absent; setae h 2 31–33, 9–10 apart.

NYMPH (range of 5 specimens). Body vermiform, 140–159; width 40–49. Gnathosoma 18–19, curved downward, dorsal pedipalpal genual setae d 2–3, setae ep 1–2, setae v 1, cheliceral stylets 11–13. Prodorsal shield 24–28, 28–37 wide, semicircular in anterior shape without frontal lobe. Shield pattern: median line very weak or absent; admedian line on entire shield length, slightly divergent; submedian line I running from anterior part of shield to base of tubercles sc; all lines very weak and covered with granules. Tubercles sc 1–2 ahead of rear shield margin, 17–19 apart; scapular setae sc 9–12. Legs with all usual segments and setae present. Leg I 14–16; femur 5, setae bv 5–6, position of bv 2; genu 3, setae l” 11–14, position of l” 2; tibia 3, setae l’ 4–5, position of l’ 1–2; tarsus 3–4, setae: ft” 10–15, ft’ 8–11, u’ 3; solenidion 4; empodium simple 3–4 with 4–5 paired rays. Leg II 13–15; femur 5, setae bv 4–5, position of bv 1–2; genu 3, setae l” 5–6, position of l” 2; tibia 2–3; tarsus 4, setae: ft” 11–14, ft’ 4– 5, u’ 2–3; solenidion 6–7; empodium simple 3–4 with 4–5 paired rays. Coxal plates smooth. Setae 1b 3–5, 7–10 apart; setae 1a 10–13, 7–8 apart; setae 2a 18–20, 20–22 apart; distance between setae 1b and 1a 6, distance between setae 1a and 2a 7–8. Prosternal apodeme 2–3. Setae 3a 4–5, 8–9 apart. Opisthosoma dorsally rounded, annuli subequal dorsoventrally; 52–58 dorsal annuli, 41–46 ventral annuli, 5–7 coxogenital annuli. Microtubercles pointed on dorsal and ventral side. Setae c 2 9–15, 36–44 apart, on 7–8th ventral annulus; d 26–31, 26–34 apart, on 14–17th ventral annulus; e 5–7, 14–17 apart, on 22–26th ventral annulus; f 13–17, 17–20 apart, on 36–41st ventral annulus, 6th annulus from rear. Setae and tubercles h1 absent; setae h 2 20–22, 8 apart.

LARVA (1 specimen). Body vermiform, 117; width 41. Gnathosoma 17, curved downward, setae ep 2, cheliceral stylets 12. Prodorsal shield subcylindrical 27, 34 wide. Shield pattern: composed of weak admedian lines only. Tubercles sc 1, ahead of rear shield margin, 19 apart; scapular setae sc 8. Legs with all usual segments and setae present. Leg I 12; femur 4, setae bv 5, position of bv 2; genu 3, setae l” 13, position of l” 1; tibia 3, setae l’ 2, tarsus 3, setae: ft” 10, ft’ 7, u’ 3; solenidion 3; empodium simple 3 with 4 paired rays. Leg II 10; femur 4, genu 2, setae l” 5, position of l” 1; tibia 2; tarsus 4, setae: ft” 9, ft’ 5, u’ 2; solenidion 5; empodium simple 3 with 4 paired rays. Coxal plates smooth. Setae 1b 3, 9 apart; setae 1a 10, 6 apart; setae 2a 14, 20 apart; distance between setae 1b and 1a 5, distance between setae 1a and 2a 7. Prosternal apodeme 4. Setae 3a 4, 6 apart. Opisthosoma with 45 dorsal and, 30 ventral annuli with pointed microtubercles, 6 coxogenital annuli. Setae c 2 9, 34 apart, on 7th ventral annulus; setae d 14, 27 apart, on 12th ventral annulus; setae e 3, 16 apart, on 17th ventral annulus; setae f 11, 16 apart, on 26th ventral annulus, 5th annulus from rear. Setae and tubercles h1 absent; setae h 2 19, 6 apart.

Type material. Holotype female (TD 08/02/14) collected from Rosa sp. ( Rosa × hybrida; unkn. cultivar of a ground cover rose) in Haifa, Israel (32°49'07"N 34°59'23"E), 16 February 2014, collected by T. Druciarek. Paratypes: 17 females, 10 males, 22 nymphs and 15 larva (TD 05/02/14 -TD 08/02/14) collected from Rosa sp. ( Rosa × hybrida; unkn. cultivar of a ground cover rose) in Haifa, Israel (32°49'07"N 34°59'23"E), 16 February 2014, collected by T. Druciarek.

Relation to the host plant. All stages of Eriophyes eremus n. sp. were found inside flower buds and in petiole bases. No apparent damage to the host plant was observed.

Etymology. The specific name is derived from the Latin noun ‘eremus’ (meaning ‘desert’), in relation to the dry climate of a type locality.

. Species name Damage symptoms Type host Type locality

Acerimina bajgahi Causing witches’ broom symptom in terminal Hybrid of a Rosa sp. Bajgah, Shiraz, Iran.

Kamali,Doryanizadeh & Akrami, 2015 twigs.

Calepitrimerus rosarum Lin & Kuang, Not stated. Rosa sp. Lengshuijiang City, Hunan Province,

2001 China.

Callyntrotus schlechtendali (Nalepa, Causing browning and rusting Rosa canina L., R. multiflora Thunb. Rheinbrohl , Germany.

1894) of leafs.

Eriophyes rhodites Nalepa, 1914 Causing leaf plication. Rosa spinosissima L. Rauhenstein, Baden bei Wein,

Austria.

Eriophyes rosae (Mohanasundaram, Not stated. Rosa sp. Doddabetta, Nilgiris, Tamil Nadu,

1981) India.

Neocalepitrimerus rosa Xie, Wei & Qin, Not stated. Rosa laevigata Michx. Fusui County , China.

2007

Paracolomerus gonglius Li, Wang, Xue No damage seen. Rosa beggeriana Schrenk ex Fisch. & C. A. Mey. Gongliu county, China.

& Zhang, 2015

Paraphytoptus rosae Domes, 2000 Causing moderate proliferation through cell- Rosa canina L. Bruchsal , Germany. division.

Phyllocoptes adalius Keifer, 1939 Causing mosaic discoloration and leaf Rosa sp., cultivated rose. Berkeley, California, USA. deformation, delay in bud development.

hyllocoptes chorites Keifer, 1972 Not stated. Rosa sp. Cuyamaca State Park, California,

USA.

hyllocoptes fructiphilus Keifer, 1940 Causing mosaic discoloration and leaf Rosa californica Cham & Schlecht. Clarksburg , California, USA.

deformation. RRV vector.

hyllocoptes linegranulatus ( Styer, 1974) Chlorotic leaves; or vagrant causing no Rosa sp., a cultivated hybrid rose. Wooster, Ohio, USA. damage.

hyllocoptruta beggerianae Li, Wang, No damage seen. Rosa beggeriana Schrenk ex Fisch. & C. A. Mey. Xinyuan county, China.

Xue & Zhang, 2015

hyllocoptruta huayangiana Xue, Song & No damage seen. Rosa sericea Lindl. subsp. omeiensis (Rolfe) A. V. Changqing, Huayang County,

Hong, 2010 Roberts. Shaanxi Province, China.

hinophytoptus rosae Roivainen, 1951 Not stated. Rosa villosa L. Kökar, Österbygge, Västra Masskär ,

Finland.

hinophytoptus roxburghis Xue, Song & No damage seen. Rosa roxburghii Tratt. Changqing, Yang Co. , Shaanxi

Hong, 2006 Province, China.

hinophytoptus sericeaomeiensis Xue, No damage seen. Rosa sericea Lindl. subsp. omeiensis (Rolfe) A. V. Changqing Nature Reserve, Huayang

ong & Hong, 2009 Roberts. Town, China.

hinophytoptus tibetirosae Song, Xue & No damage seen. Rosa sp. Bayi Town, Tibet Autonomous

Hong, 2009 Region, China.

Remarks. Eriophyes eremus n. sp. is similar in shield pattern to E. rosae ( Mohanasundaram 1981) , which also inhabits rose plants. However it can be easily differentiated from the latter by the: overall body size ( E. eremus 156–214, E. rosae 230–240); genital coverflap with basal part granulated and with only 2–5 curved, diagonal ridges on posterior part ( E. rosae 12 vertical lines); and smooth coxal area (with scorings in E. rosae ). Both species also differ by the number of opisthosomal annuli ( E. eremus 62–69, E. rosae 95), the length of setae 3a ( E. eremus 7–10, E. rosae 30), and length of setae e ( E. eremus 9–14, E. rosae 25). In addition E. eremus , unlike E. rosae , lacks tubercules and setae h1. Furthermore E. rosae was reported as vagrant, whereas the new species is a refuge-seeking type, inhabiting flower buds and petiole bases.

Eriophyes eremus n. sp. is also similar to E. rhodites ( Nalepa 1914) , however the description made one hundred years ago and lack of drawings as well as type specimens do not allow for precise species comparison. Still a few characters, such as body shape, sculpture of genital shield (smooth in case of E. rhodites and with 2–5 diagonal ribs in case of E. eremus ) and prodorsal shield differentiate these two species. According to Nalepa’s description, the sculpture of the prodorsal shield of E. rhodites is composed of lines running from the anterior shield margin to its center, then curving to the lateral margin and back to the sc tubercles. Additional lines on the anterior part of the shield are also present in case of E. rhodites ; these lines are divided in the middle of prodorsal shield. Again, the life-style also differentiates these two species as E. rhodites is a vagrant and E. eremus a refugeseeker.

Figures

FIGURE 1. Eriophyes eremus n. sp. female. D—dorsal mite; em—empodium (enlarged); IG—internal genitalia (enlarged); L 1, L 2 — legs.

FIGURE 2. Eriophyes eremus n. sp. female. CG—coxogenital region; LO—lateral opisthosoma; PL—postero-lateral mite; male. GM—genital region.