Sperchon (Hispidosperchon) ornatus Halbert, 1944

Sabatino, Antonio Di, Gerecke, Reinhard, Gledhill, Terence & Smit, Harry, 2009, On the taxonomy of water mites (Acari: Hydrachnidia) described from the Palaearctic, part 2: Hydryphantoidea and Lebertioidea, Zootaxa 2266, pp. 1-34 : 23

Sperchon (Hispidosperchon) ornatus Halbert, 1944

Species incerta

Material examined: Sperchon ornatus Halbt. Type. Leixlip R. Liffey 29.4.1939 coll.J.N.H. [This slide holds four specimens under 1 coverslip: 1 undissected ovigerous Ƥ; 1 undissected specimen; 1 specimen minus mouthparts – these not found in the preparation; 1Ƥ minus mouthparts – these also not found. Contraction of mountant and discolouration makes any decision on the identity of these specimens impossible]; Sperchon ornatus 3 River Flesk, Killarney 6.vi. ’39 coll. J.N.H. [both specimens under the same coverslip, 3 mounted without mouthparts, 1 palp P-2 – P-5, capitulum with palp and chelicerae; Ƥ without mouthparts, 1 palp P-2 – P-5, capitulum with palp and chelicerae]; Sperchon ornatus Halb. ovig. Ƥ Flesk river near bridge, Killarney, Co. Kerry 6.40. E.F.B. [E.F.B. = Mr E. Bullock. This specimen could not be found in this preparation!]; Sperchon ornatus Ƥ n.sp. R. Liffey, Salmon Leap. 4.38. (Ht) [? Halbert] also a small slide label with HOLOTYPE det J.C. Conroy 27.viii.1982. [this slide holds 2 specimens: Ovigerous Ƥ mounted whole; 1 specimen without mouthparts, both specimens somewhat compressed, capitulum with palps and chelicerae attached mounted under a separate coverslip and somewhat compressed.

Discussion: Halbert (1944, p.56) states: “Dorsal-plates much as in S. clupeifer Piersig ”; and adds a footnote: “The subcutaneous dorsal-plates vary in size; in some specimens they are scarcely larger than in S.clupeifer , in others they reach the development figured (Pl.I fig.1a). In the key to the Irish sperchontids presented by Halbert (1944, p.51) the only character separating S clupeifer and S. ornatus is whether the inner margin of Cx-III is produced. Examination of the preparations listed above showed some specimens to have Cx-III anteromedially produced whilst others were smoothly rounded. The preparation labelled as ‘Type’ held 4 specimens, that examined later by Conroy and labelled as ‘Holotype’ by him in 1982 held 2 specimens. It is not known in either preparation which specimen is the ‘type’ and because of the very poor state of Halbert’s ‘Type’ preparation, it is more-or-less impossible to determine whether the specimens examined by Conroy were conspecific with those on Halbert’s preparation. It is possible that Halbert was dealing with Sperchon clupeifer , however, posteroventral plates, typical for males of that species, could not be observed in the male specimen collected by Halbert from the River Flesk, but this may be due to the poor state of the preparation. Consequently, Sperchon ornatus Halbert must be considered as a species incerta .