Syringophilopsis hunanensis Liu, 1988

Skoracki, Maciej, 2011, Quill mites (Acari: Syringophilidae) of the Palaearctic region 2840, Zootaxa 2840 (1), pp. 1-414 : 201-205

Syringophilopsis hunanensis Liu, 1988 species inquirenda

Syringophilopsis hunanensis Liu, 1988: 274 , figs. 1–6.

Type host: Passer domesticus ( Passeriformes : Passeridae ). Type locality: China.

This species was described by Liu (1988) based on material (female holotype and 3 female and 1 male paratypes) collected ex. Passer domesticus (Linnaeus) from Hunan Province of CHINA ( Liu 1988). Diagnosis of this species is uninformative and provides only generic characters. Figures presented by author (see Liu 1988: Figs 1–6 , pages 275, 276) are copies of Kethley’s figures (see Kethley 1970: Figs 10A–D , 11A, B , pages 23, 24) where only the shape of the propodonotal shield is changed. Is worthy of note, that such a shape for this shield is not to be observed in any known species of the genus Syringophilopsis . The holotype and paratypes have been deposited in the DPHA but were not available for this study. I consider this species as species inquirenda.

Key to Syringophilopsis species

(Females)

S. hylocichlae ( Clark, 1964) , S. passerinae ( Clark, 1964) are insufficiently described and are not included in this key.

1. Setae f1 and h1 subequal in length....................................................................... 2

– Setae f1 and h1 unequal in length....................................................... / fringillae group / ... 17

2. Setae f1 and h1 short and several times shorter than f2 and h2 ..................................... / turdi group / ... 3

– Setae f1 and h1 long subequal to f2 and h2 .............................................. / elongatus group / … 21

3. Hypostomal apex with 2 pairs of protuberances............................................................ 4

– Hypostomal apex with 1 pair of protuberances............................................................. 11

4. Genital setae g1 and g2 shorter than aggenital setae ag2 .................................. S. rusticus Skoracki, 2004

– Both genital setae and aggenital setae ag2 subequal in length or genital setae slightly longer than setae ag2 .............. 5

5. Propodonotal setae vi and ve subequal in length....................................... S. kazmierski Skoracki, 2004

– Propodonotal setae ve longer than vi ....................................................................... 6

6. Setae vi longer than 200, setae ve longer than 300.............................. S. garrulus Skoracki and Dabert, 2004

– Setae vi shorter than 110, setae ve shorter than 210........................................................... 7

7. Bases of setae se and c1 situated at same transverse level...................................................... 8

– Bases of setae se situated distinctly anterior to level of setae c1 ................................................ 9

8. Propodonotal shield slightly sculptured and concave on anterior margin. Pygidial shield small, concave on anterior margin. Apodemes I fused to apodemes II in middle part of apodemes II. Setae ve twice as long as vi ................................................................................................ S. corvinae Skoracki and Sikora, 2003

– Propodonotal shield strongly sculptured and straight on anterior margin. Pygidial shield medium sized, convex on anterior margin. Apodemes I fused to apodemes II in anterior part of apodemes II. Setae ve 2.5–3 times longer than vi ........................................................................ S. yosefi Skoracki, Tryjanowski and Hromada, 2002

9. Hysteronotal shields present. Setae ve no longer than 130..................................................... 10

– Hysteronotal shields absent. Setae ve 170–200............................................. S. turdi ( Fritsch, 1958)

10. Hypostomal apex ornamented with 2 pairs of large protuberances. Lengths of stylophore and movable cheliceral digit 260–280 and 205–215 respectively. Both genital setae and aggenital setae ag2 subequal in length............................................................................................... S. sialiae Skoracki, Flannery and Spicer, 2008

– Hypostomal apex ornamented with 2 pairs of small protuberances. Lengths of stylophore and movable cheliceral digit 160– 170 and 115–120 respectively. Both genital setae 1.3–1.6 times longer than setae ag2 ............ S. muscicapicus sp. nov.

11. Seta ve 4–4.5 times longer than vi. Setae ag2 1.5 times longer than g1 ................... S. acrocephali Skoracki, 1999

– Seta ve 1.8–3.5 times longer than vi. Setae ag2 2 or more times longer than g1 ................................... 12

12. Aggenital setae ag1 and ag2 subequal in length............................................................ 14

– Aggenital setae ag1 and ag2 distinctly unequal in length..................................................... 13

13. Setae ag1 1.3 times longer than ag2. Setae ag2 2.5–3 times longer than g1. Setae ve twice as long as vi ........................................................................... S. kirgizorum Bochkov, Mironov and Kravtsova, 2000

– Setae ag1 twice as long as ag2. Setae ag2 twice as long as g1. Setae ve 3–3.5 times longer than vi.......................................................................................... S. lagonostictus Skoracki and Dabert 2002

14. Hysteronotal shields absent............................................................................ 15

– Hysteronotal shields present............................................................................ 16

15. Infracapitulum densely punctate. Length of stylophore and movable cheliceral digit 235–245 and 170–180 respectively. Hysteronotal shields absent. Fan-like setae p’ and p” of legs III and IV with 12–13 tines. Setae tc”III–IV and tc’III–IV subequal in length. Setae ag3 1.4–1.6 times longer than setae ag2....................................... S. passericus sp. nov.

– Infracapitulum apunctate. Length of stylophore and movable cheliceral digit 190–220 and 140, respectively. Hysteronotal shields present and punctate. Fan-like setae p’ and p” of legs III and IV with 9–10 tines. Setae tc”III–IV 1.4 times longer than tc’III–IV. Setae ag3 slightly (1.1 times) longer than setae ag2........... S. polioptilus Skoracki, Flannery and Spicer, 2008

16. Setae ag2 twice as long as setae g1. Length of setae ve 105–110. Coxal fields I–IV apunctate........... S. idunae sp. nov.

– Setae ag2 2.5 times longer than setae g1. Length of setae ve 245–275. Coxal fields I–IV punctate … S. sturni Chirov and Kravtsova, 1995

17. Setae f1 twice as long as h1 ............................................................................ 18

– Setae f1 distinctly shorter than h1 ........................................................................ 19

18. Length of setae f1 and h1 180–190 and 80–90 respectively. Setae h2 slightly (1.1–1.2 times) longer than f2. Hysteronotal shields present............................................... S. empidonax Skoracki, Flannery and Spicer, 2008

– Length of setae f1 and h1 90–120 and 45–60 respectively. Setae h2 about twice as long as f2. Hysteronotal shields absent..................................................................... S. dendroicae Bochkov and Galloway, 2001

19. Length of setae vi more than 200.................................................... S. fringillae ( Fritsch, 1958)

– Length of setae vi no more than 150..................................................................... 20

20. The length ratio vi: ve 1:2, in males length ratio of setae d2: e2 1:1................ S. albicollisi Skoracki and Dabert, 2000

– The length ratio vi: ve 1:2.7–3, in males length ratio of setae d2: e2 4 –4.5:1....... S. melittophagi Skoracki and Dabert, 2001

21. Genital setae are long and subequal to aggenital setae ag2 .................................................... 22

– Genital setae are short and several times shorter than setae ag2 ................................................ 25

22. Hypostomal apex with 3 pairs of protuberances............................... S. icteri Bochkov and Galloway, 2001

– Hypostomal apex with 1 pair of protuberances.............................................................. 23

23. Hysteronotal shields absent. Fan-like setae p’ and p” of legs III and IV with 16–18 tines............................................................................................. S. emberizae Fain, Bochkov and Mironov, 2000

– Hysteronotal shields present. Fan-like setae p’ and p” of legs III and IV with 12–14 tines........................... 24

24. Length of setae ag2 and g2 145–155 and 135–170 respectively. Pygidial shield apunctate................................................................................................... S. borini Bochkov and Mironov, 1999

– Length of setae ag2 and g2 290–300 and 295–305 respectively. Pygidial shield distinctly punctate............................................................................................ S. blaszaki Skoracki and Dabert, 1999

25. Setae vi shorter than 100–155......................................................................... 26

– Setae vi longer than 205–270.......................................................................... 29

26. Setae se situated distinctly anterior to level of setae c1. Hysteronotal shields absent … S. tyranni Bochkov and Galloway, 2004

– Setae se situated slightly anterior to level of setae c1 or both setae set at same transverse level. Hysteronotal shields present … ................................................................................................... 27

27. Hypostomal apex with 2 pairs of protuberances........................................ S. hirundus Skoracki, 2004

– Hypostomal apex with 1 pair of protuberances............................................................. 28

28. Setae ve 1.6 times longer than vi. Total body length 1015–1050. Length of genital setae g1 and g2 70–80 and 80–125 respectively. In male setae d2 twice as long as e2 ....................... S. kristini Skoracki, Tryjanowski and Hromada, 2002

– Setae ve twice as long as vi. Total body length 1265–1285. Length of genital setae g1 and g2 55 and 60–65 respectively. In male setae d2 and e2 subequal in length....................................... S. nitens Skoracki and Dabert, 2001

29. Setae c1 and se situated at same transverse level. Hysteronotal shield absent................ S. spinolettus Skoracki, 2004

– Setae se situated distinctly anterior to level of setae c1. Hysteronotal shield present................................ 30

30. Lateral branch of peritremes with 9 chambers. Length ratio of setae vi: si 1:1.8. Setae si situated anterior to level of setae c2 …............................................................ S. veselovsky Skoracki, Antczak and Riegert, 2009

– Lateral branch of peritremes with 12–14 chambers. Length ratio of setae vi: si 1:1.2. Setae si and c2 situated at same transverse level.......................................................................... S. elongatus ( Ewing, 1911)

Figures

FIGURE 1. Female, general scheme. A, dorsal view; B, ventral view. Abbreviations: (ap.) apodemes, (c.f.) coxal field, (ga.o.) genito-anal opening, (g.s.) genital plate, (h.s.), hysteronotal shield, (in.) infracapitulum, (per.) peritremes, (p.s.) propodonotal shield, (py.s.) pygidial shield, (s.f.) sejugal furrow, (st.) stylophore.

FIGURE 2. Male, general scheme. A, dorsal view; B, ventral view. Abbreviations: (ae.) aedeagus, (ap.) apodemes, (c.f.) coxal field, (ga.o.) genito-anal opening, (h.s.) hysteronotal shield, (in.) infracapitulum, (per.) peritremes, (p.s.) propodonotal shield, (py.s.) pygidial shield, (s.f.) sejugal furrow, (st.) stylophore.

FIGURE 3. Details of morphology. A–H, hypostomal apices: A, rounded; B, flat; C, tapering; D, rounded, with shoulders; E, with 2 pairs of median protuberances; F, with one pair of median protuberances, G and H, scheme of hypostome; I–K, movable cheliceral digit: I, needle-like; J, harpoon-like; K, with cuticular processes; L–P, peritremes: L, Mshaped; M, pi-shaped; N and O, U-shaped; P, V-shaped. Abbreviations: (c.p.) cuticular processes of movable cheliceral digit, (ch.t.) cheliceral teeth, (h.l.) hypostomal lips, (h.t.) hypostomal teeth, (l.b.) lateral branch of peritreme, (m.b.) medial branch of peritreme, (m.p.) median protuberances of hypostome.

FIGURE 4. Palps of Syringophilinae in dorsal (left) and ventral (right) view. A, in larva; B, in protonymph; C, in tritonymph; D, in adult.

FIGURE 5. Palps of Picobiinae in dorsal (left) and ventral (right) view. A, in larva; B, in protonymph; C, in tritonymph; D, in adult.

FIGURE 6. Details of idiosomal sclerotization. A–D, propodonotal shield; E–F, hysteronotal and pygidial shields; I, genital plate; J and K, aggenital plate.

FIGURE 10. General scheme of tarsus in following developmental stages in dorsal and ventral view (Picobiinae). A, in larva; B, in protonymph; C, in tritonymph; D, in adult.

FIGURE 11. Empodium and claws of some genera in the same scale. A, Selenonycha Kethley; B, Creagonycha Kethley; C, Syringophiloidus Kethley; D, Neoaulonastus Skoracki.