Neacariscus (Whartonacarus) sulae ( Oudemans, 1910 )

K, Sirikamon Koosakulnirand, RajasegaranK, Praveena, Alkathiry K, Hadil A., ChaisiriK, Kittipong, RoundK, Philip D., Eiamampai, Krairat, Ahmad KhusainiK, Mohd K. S., RamjiK, Mohamad Fizl Sidq, AbubakarK, Sazaly, Ya’cobK, Zubaidah, Stekolnikov K, Alexandr A. & Makepeace K, Benjamin L., 2023, On the taxonomy of chigger mites (Acariformes: Trombiculidae) parasitizing birds in Thailand and Malaysia, with the description of a new species, Acarologia 63 (4), pp. 1109-1138 : 1121-1122

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.24349/yt89-g1ei
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B9A276-436E-356B-FE13-D5C8FAE485C5
treatment provided by	Felipe
scientific name	Neacariscus (Whartonacarus) sulae ( Oudemans, 1910 )
status

Treatment

Neacariscus (Whartonacarus) sulae ( Oudemans, 1910)

( Fig. 1D View Figure 1 )

Diagnosis — SIF = 7BS-N-2-3111.1000; fPp = B/N/NNN; fCx = 1.1.1; fSt = 2.2; PL ≫

AL = AM; fD = 2H-10-10-6-2-2; DS = 32 – 36; V = 50 – 65; NDV = 86 – 101; Ip = 1181 –

1206; eyes 2 + 2, of moderate size; flagelliform sensilla (trichobothria) with short branches in distal part; sensillary bases anterior to level of PL; solenidion ω () of palpal tarsus long and slender. Standard measurements are given in Table 4.

Distribution and hosts — This species was described from a single specimen (holotype) collected in an unknown locality of West Africa, ex Morus capensis (Lichtenstein) (syn.: Sula capensis ) ( Suliformes : Sulidae ). Zumpt (1961) referred to the host as Morus bassanus (L.). Here it is for the first time recorded in Asia and on Pluvialis squatarola .

Material examined — Two larvae ( ZIN 17962, 18168) ex Pluvialis squatarola , THAILAND, Trang province, Koh Libong, 7.243892°N, 99.451315°E, 16 March 2021, coll. S. Koosakulnirand.

Remarks — The species was initially described briefly ( Oudemans 1910): a fully illustrated redescription was published two years later ( Oudemans 1912). Fuller (1952) and Vercammen-Grandjean & Langston (1976) also examined and redescribed the holotype. According to the latter authors, the fD of the holotype is 2H-8-8-8-4-4-2, which seems different from the fD in our material (2H-10-10-6-2-2). However, a comparison of the drawing made by Oudemans (1912, fig. A1) with our specimens shows that the divergence could be caused by a different mode of preparation and, probably, unequal levels of mite engorgement.

Fuller (1952) described the ventral palpal tibial seta of the holotype as branched, which agrees with the drawing made by Oudemans (1912, fig. A4). However, Vercammen-Grandjean & Langston (1976) drew and described this seta as nude, as in our material. The scutum on their drawing (pl. 282) bears multiple transverse striae, which were not mentioned by Oudemans (1912) and Fuller (1952). They are also absent in our specimens. Therefore, our material may represent a new species close to N. sulae . Additional collections in Africa and one more re-examination of the N. sulae holotype would be desirable to reach a conclusion.