Indoribates Jacot, 1929: 429

Xu, Shu-Jing, Liu, Cheng-Lin & Chen, Jun, 2024, Taxonomic contribution to the knowledge of the genus Indoribates and Lauritzenia (Acari, Oribatida, Haplozetidae), with description of a new species from China, Zootaxa 5556 (1), pp. 84-96 : 85-86

Genus Indoribates Jacot, 1929: 429

Nixozetes Mahunka, 1977: 268

Sundazetes Hammer, 1979: 61 ; Mahunka 1987: 812 (synonym of Nixozetes ); Balogh & Balogh 1992: 135 (synonymy). Bolkiah Mahunka, 1997: 692 ; Ermilov et al. 2019: 471 (synonymy).

Type species. Protoribates punctulatus Sellnick, 1925

General remarks

According to Subías’s system ( Subías 2020, 2022; Subías & Shtanchaeva 2023), the main difference between the genera Indoribates and Lauritzenia is the number of genital setae. Indoribates has five pairs of genital setae, while Lauritzenia has four pairs (e.g., Balogh & Balogh 1992; Hammer 1958, 1979; Jacot 1929; Mahunka 1977, 1997; Subías 2020; Subías & Shtanchaeva 2023).

Subías (2020) and Subías and Shtanchaeva (2023) stated that the genus Indoribates comprises five subgenera, including the nominate subgenus Indoribates and subgenus Bihaplozetes Subías, 2020 . Species of the subgenus Indoribates have monodactylous legs, while Bihaplozetes is characterized by bidactylous legs ( Subías 2020; Subías & Shtanchaeva 2023). The new species we describe in this paper have monodactylous legs I and bidactylous legs II to IV. The leg characteristics of the new species lie between those of the subgenus Indoribates and Bihaplozetes . Therefore, we suggest augmenting the diagnosis of the subgenus Indoribates to include the species with monodactylous or bidactylous legs, in order to avoid identification confusion. And we propose that Bihaplozetes is a junior synonym of the subgenus Indoribates : Indoribates (Indoribates) Jacot, 1929 (= Indoribates (Bihaplozetes) Subías, 2020 syn. nov.).

According to Subías’s system ( Subías 2020, 2022; Subías & Shtanchaeva 2023), the genus Lauritzenia comprises four subgenera, including the nominate subgenus Lauritzenia and subgenus Incabates . The most important difference between them is that the legs are monodactylous in the nominate subgenus, and heterotridactylous in Incabates ( Balogh & Balogh 1992; Subías 2020; Subías & Shtanchaeva 2023). However, in the catalogue of Subías (2022, updated 2024), some species do not conform to these characteristics. For ease of identification, we propose revising the classification of certain species.

Indoribates (Indoribates) carneus ( Tseng, 1984) , listed in the catalogue of Subías (2022, updated 2024), has four pairs of genital setae according to the original illustration. Additionally, the species has monodactylous legs, as per the diagnosis of Lauritzenia described by Tseng (1984). Therefore, the species should be placed in Lauritzenia (Lauritzenia) .

Indoribates (Indoribates) nobilis ( Golosova, 1984) listed in the catalogue of Subías (2022, updated 2024), has four pairs of genital setae. Thus, it should be removed from the genus Indoribates . Golosova (1984) did not describe the legs of the species, but it was originally described in the genus Cosmobates Balogh, 1959 , in which the species has heterotridactylous legs. Therefore, it is inferred that the legs of species nobilis are also heterotridactylous, and the species should be placed in Lauritzenia (Incabates) . Thus, a new combination is proposed: Lauritzenia (Incabates) nobilis ( Golosova, 1984) comb. nov.

Indoribates (Haplozetes) albidus ( Ewing, 1908) , listed in the catalogue of Subías (2022, updated 2024), was once placed in the genus Scheloribates Berlese, 1908 by examining the syntype ( Marshall et al. 1987). However, Subías (2004) placed it in the genus Protoribates Berlese, 1908 without any comments, and later, he placed it in Indoribates . Here, we agree with the view of Marshall et al. (1987) and the species should not be placed in the family Haplozetidae .

Lauritzenia (Lauritzenia) cuticulata ( Tseng, 1984) , listed in the catalogue of Subías (2022, updated 2024), was originally placed in the genus Muliercula Coetzer, 1968 , in which the pteromorphs of the species lack hinges. Tseng (1984) also stated that this species is similar to the other species, Muliercula chiayiensis Tseng, 1984 , described in the same genus and paper, whose pteromorphs also lack hinges. Therefore, it is inferred that the pteromorphs of the species cuticulata lack hinges, and it should not be placed in Indoribates (Haplozetes) . Meanwhile, due to the absence of the type specimens ( Ermilov & Liao 2017), it may be better to keep it in the genus Muliercula .