Sinoseius lobatus Bai, Gu & Fang, 1995

Masan, Peter, 2017, A revision of the family Ameroseiidae (Acari, Mesostigmata), with some data on Slovak fauna, ZooKeys 704, pp. 1-228 : 1

Sinoseius lobatus Bai, Gu & Fang, 1995

Plates 73 , 74 , 75

Sinoseius lobatus Bai, Gu & Fang, 1995: 436.

Sinoseius pinnatus Huhta & Karg, 2010: 335. Syn. n.

Sinoseius pinnatus . - Fenďa and Lukáš 2014: 174.

Type depository.

Of Sinoseius lobatus - Institute of Endemic Disease Control, Ningxia Autonomous Region, Yinchuan, China; of Sinoseius pinnatus - Zoological Museum, University of Turku, Finland; Senckenberg Museum für Naturkunde, Görlitz, Germany; Zoological Museum, University of Helsinki, Finland.

Type locality and habitat.

Of Sinoseius lobatus - China, Ningxia Autonomous Region, Haiyuan County, on long-tailed dwarf hamster, Cricetulus longicaudatus ( Mammalia, Rodentia , Cricetidae ); of Sinoseius pinnatus - Finland, Parainen, Sunnaberg, bottom of straw shed.

Comparative material.

Finland: 2 ♀♀ (ZMT: ACA.MES.FIN.3.654, holotype and paratype) - 10. 10. 1982, Parainen, Sunnaberg, bottom of straw shed, leg. P. T. Lehtinen (labelled Sinoseius pinnatus ) .

Published and verified material from Slovakia.

Čierna Hora Mts.: Veľký Folkmar Village, Ružín Dam; Veľký Folkmar Village, Veľká Hoľa Cave ( Fenďa and Lukáš 2014, cited as Sinoseius pinnatus ).

Remarks.

The first European finding of the genus Sinoseius was that of Huhta and Karg (2010) from Finland (bottom of straw shed and grass in garden of old farm). Fenďa and Lukáš (2014) found the species in a frozen nest of Sitta europaea Linnaeus, 1758 ( Aves, Passeriformes ), in a nest box, and in a soil sample from the dysphotic zone of a cave. I have compared the holotype and one paratype of Sinoseius pinnatus with the specimens reported from Slovakia by Fenďa and Lukáš (2014), and found that they are clearly conspecific. According to Huhta and Karg (2010), Sinoseius lobatus and S. pinnatus can be distinguished by the features presented as follows: in S. lobatus , dorsal setae "remarkably long", j5 = j5-j6, j6> j6-J2, tines of dorsal setae strong (depicted seven pairs of tines), anal shield distinctly wider than long (length/width = 2:3), corniculi bifid; in S. pinnatus , dorsal setae „moderate“, j5 = 2/3 × j5-j6, j6 <j6-J2, tines of dorsal setae very thin (depicted up to 19 instead of 9-10 pairs of tines), anal shield only a little wider than long, corniculi distally trifid. It is clear that the distinctions made in the original descriptions and differential diagnosis of S. pinnatus by Huhta and Karg (2010) are based on characteristics that are misinterpreted (form of setae and corniculi) or vary considerably (relative length of dorsal setae, proportion of anal shield), and I do not hesitate to propose the synonymy of both mentioned species, although no types of S. lobatus were examined in this study. When compared the Slovak specimens of Sinoseius with quite adequate original illustrations of S. lobatus from China, it was not possible to find reliable distinguishing characters between them.

Figures

Plate 73. Sinoseius lobatus, female, dorsal idiosoma (pressed specimen).

Plate 74. Sinoseius lobatus, female. A Dorsal idiosoma (pressed specimen) B Hypostome, ventral view C Chelicera, lateral view D Dorsal setae E Setae j 1 F Detail of pinnate structure of dorsal seta.

Plate 75. Sinoseius lobatus, female. A Sternal shield B Epigynal shield C Anal shield D Dorsal idiosoma with legs.