Lorryia catenulata ( Thor, 1931 )

KhaustovK, Alexander A., 2023, Contribution to the fauna of Tydeidae (Acari: Prostigmata) from Western Siberia, Russia, Acarologia 63 (2), pp. 491-521 : 502-505

Lorryia catenulata ( Thor, 1931)

Retetydeus catenulatus Thor, 1931 , 91

Lorryia catenulata : Baker 1968a, 1001

Tydeus catenulata : Momen and Lundqvist 1995, 43

Brachytydeus catenulata : Silva et al. 2016, 12

Brachytydeus catenulatus : André 2021

( Figs 20 , 21A, B )

This species originally was described from Norway ( Thor 1931). Baker (1968a) redescribed it based on specimens from Ireland. Kaźmierski (1980) redescribed it based on materials from

Poland. Kuznetsov and Petrov (1984) recorded this species in Latvia. According to Kuznetsov and Petrov (1984) this species also was recorded in European Russia (Voronezh Region), Georgia and Ukraine. Momen and Lundqvist (1995) reported it from Sweden. Kaźmierski et al. (2018) noted that this species prefers such habitats as moss covering shady rocks in dark needle forests.

Kuznetsov and Petrov (1984) provided an illustration of L. catenulata which, in fact, repeat the illustration of L. polita Kuznetsov, 1975a , a closely related species described from Georgia. Most likely, they consider L. polita as a suspected junior synonym of L. catenulata . According to the key of Kaźmierski (1998) L. polita can be distinguished from L. catenulata in having separate reticulated area A[c2]0[e1] between setae c2 and e. In fact, in the original description of Thor (1931) this area is clearly depicted as well as in redescription of Baker (1968a). My specimens from Western Siberia fully correspond to the description of Thor (1931), especially in having an anterior invagination (poorly developed in some specimens) in the reticulate area A[c2]0[e1] ( Figs 20A , 22A ). For the separation or possible synonymy of L. polita , I examined the holotype of this species ( Figs. 21C, D , 22C, D ). Both species are very similar, however, the reticulate area A[c2]0[e1] in L. polita is hardly discernible on the left side and is clearly separated from area Ac2 on the right side of the holotype ( Fig. 22D ). Therefore, the use of this character for the separation of L. polita and L. catenulata is problematic. The study of palpal setae revealed some minor differences between L. polita and L. catenulata . In L. catenulata seta ba of the palptarsus is very short and blunt-tipped, distinctly shorter than seta acm and seta

v is pointed ( Fig. 21A, B ); in L. polita seta ba is unusually long and thin, pointed, subequal in length with acm, and seta v is clearly blunt-tipped ( Fig 21C, D ). There are no differences in the shape of dorsal idiosomal setae and structure of reticulate areas on the idiosoma. In L. catenulata , the dorsal idiosomal setae are weakly barbed and pointed ( Fig. 20C, D ), and in L. polita the dorsal idiosomal setae not so strongly barbed as in the original description. Another character, which could be used for the separation L of. polita from L. catenulata , is the shape of striae between ventral setae 3a and 4a. In L. catenulata striae form a “V”-shaped ornament ( Fig. 22B ), while in L. polita striae are parallel ( Fig. 22C ).

– metapodosomal venter; C – gnathosoma in ventral view, arrow points to short basal part of cheliceral stylet; D – ano-genital area of female;

E – progenital chamber of female with well-developed genital papillae (arrowed); F – progenital chamber of male with well-developed genital papillae (arrowed).

Figures

Figure 20 SEM micrographs ofLorryia catenulata (Thor, 1931), female: A – general view dorsally, B – reticulate area A(c1); C – setac1; D – seta f2.

Figure 21 Right palps of femalesLorryia catenulata (Thor, 1931) (A) and L. polita Kuznetsov, 1975

Figure 22 DIC (A–C) and phase contrast (D), micrographs ofLorryia catenulata (Thor, 1931) (A–B) and L. polita Kuznetsov, 1975 (C–D) (holotype): A – lateral part of metapodosomal dorsum; B, C – metapodosomal venter; D – general view dorsally.