Echinacrus ruthenicus, Lotfollahi, Parisa, de Lillo, Enrico & Irani-Nejad, Karim Haddad, 2014

Lotfollahi, Parisa, de Lillo, Enrico & Irani-Nejad, Karim Haddad, 2014, Three new species from the subfamily Phyllocoptinae (Acari, Trombidiformes, Eriophyidae) in Iran, ZooKeys 426, pp. 17-27 : 20-22

Taxon classification Animalia ORDO FAMILIA

Echinacrus ruthenicus sp. n. Fig. 2

Description.

FEMALE (n=10). Body spindle shaped, 195 (195-255, including gnathosoma), 73 thick, 68 (68-79) wide. Gnathosoma 26 (25-37) projecting obliquely downwards, chelicerae 26 (22-30), setae d 7 (7-9), unbranched. Prodorsal shield 47 (47-54) included the frontal lobe, 70 (60-74) wide, sub-triangular with a broad based and distally pointed frontal lobe, 10 (8-11) over gnathosomal base (starting from the distal motivator end). Shield pattern reticulated, composed of 22 cells resulted of connecting distinct median, admedian, submedian and lateral lines with transverse lines. Tubercles of setae sc on the rear shield margin, 33 (28-35) apart, setae sc 16 (15-19), directing backward. Leg I 37 (35-38), femur 11 (10-12), genu 6 (5-6), tibia 10 (8-10), tarsus 9 (8-9), ω 6.5 (6-7) distally knobbed, empodium simple, 4 (4-5), 4-rayed, rays distally funnel shaped; setae bv 13 (11-15), setae l" 24 (22-26), setae l' 4 (3-5), setae ft' 20 (19-20), setae ft" 22 (22-23). Leg II 36 (32-36), femur 11 (10-11), genu 5 (5-6), tibia 8 (7-8), tarsus 8 (8-9), ω 6.5 (6-7) distally knobbed, empodium simple, 4 (4-5), 4-rayed; setae bv 10 (9-11), setae l" 5 (4-7), setae ft' 4, setae ft" 21 (19-22). Coxae with lined dashes; setae 1b 7 (5-8), tubercles 1b 10 (9-12) apart, setae 1a 38 (27-38), tubercles 1a 7 (7-8) apart, setae 2a 60 (60-73), tubercles 2a 21 (21-26) apart. Prosternal apodeme 5 (5-6). Opisthosoma dorsally arched, with 44 (41-49) broad dorsal semiannuli, 76 (70-86) narrow ventral semiannuli (counted from the first annulus after the coxae II) and 11 semiannuli between coxae and genital coverflap plus 2-3 broken transversal rows of lined granules at the base of the coverflap. Triangular broad based microtubercles on the posterior margin of dorsal semiannuli with a lined longitudinal distribution; circular microtubercles, finely spiny, on the middle of ventral semiannuli; last 6 ventral semiannuli with elongated and linear microtubercles. Setae c2 45 (36-45) on ventral semiannulus 15 (12-17), setae d 70 (65-85) on ventral semiannulus 29 (25-34); setae e 58 (43-64) on ventral semiannulus 49 (44-57); setae f 29 (24-33) on ventral semiannulus 70 (64-80). 6 annuli after setae f. Setae h2 102 (92-112) very thin at the apex, h1 2 (2-3). Genital coverflap 14 (11-16), 22 (20-25) wide, with 12 (11-13) striae; setae 3a 18 (18-23), 15 (15-17) apart.

MALE (n=2). Similar in shape and prodorsal shield arrangement to female, 170-205. Prodorsal shield 45-50; setae sc 13-14, 23-32 apart. Opisthosoma with 39-44 dorsal semiannuli and 56-69 ventral semiannuli.

Type host plant.

Lycium ruthenicum Murray ( Solanaceae ), Russian Box Thorn.

Relation to the host plant.

Vagrant on leaves; no apparent damage was observed.

Type locality.

Ilkhchi, Iran (37°57'02"N, 45°58'40"E), 1,300 m above sea level; late July 2011, coll. P. Lotfollahi.

Type material.

Holotype: single female on a microscope slide (LR-IEA-II11L-1) (at the Acarology Laboratory, Department of Plant Protection, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran). Paratypes: 9 females, 2 males and 1 nymph mounted on separate microscope slides.

Other material.

Mites preserved in Oudemans’ fluid as extracted from the same sample as the type specimens.

Etymology.

The specific epithet is coming from the host plant name ruthenicum, deleting “m” and adding “s” as suffix.

Remarks.

This is the first record of the genus Echinacrus on plants of family Solanaceae , first record of this genus in Iran and the first record of eriophyoid mites on Lycium ruthenicum .

Differential diagnosis.

The new species herein described was compared with all Echinacrus species and similarities along with Echinacrus septemcarinatus (Liro, 1941), collected on Frangula dodonei Ard. (the synonym Rhamnus frangula L. was originally listed by Liro) in Lintula, Isthmus karelicus, Finland, were observed. The empodial rays (4 of the Iranian species versus 5 of Liro’s species), shape, number and density of dorsal microtubercles (denser and more numerous in the Iranian species than those of Liro’s description) and prodorsal shield pattern (22 cells in the Iranian species versus a lower number of cells in part differently arranged) are the main differences between the two species.