Neotrombicula Hirst, 1925

Stekolnikov, Alexandr & Daniel, Milan, 2012, 3216, Zootaxa 3216, pp. 1-104 : 41

Genus Neotrombicula Hirst, 1925

Trombicula (Neotrombicula) Hirst, 1925: 60 .

Neotrombicula, Womersley & Audy 1957: 267 ; Vercammen-Grandjean 1960: tabl.; Kudryashova 1979: 48; Vercammen- Grandjean & Kolebinova 1985: 68; Kudryashova 1998: 173; Fernandes & Kulkarni 2003: 266.

Type species: Acarus autumnalis Shaw, 1790 , by monotypy.

Diagnosis. SIF = 7BS-N(B)-3-(1–3)111.(0–3)(0-2)0(0–1); fPp = B/B/N(B)N(B)B(N); fCx = 1.1(2).1(2); fSt = 2.2(4). Eyes 2 + 2. Scutum nearly pentagonal, rarely hexagonal, with rounded posterior margin, without anterolateral shoulders. Sensilla flagelliform, usually branched in distal part.

Hosts. Mammals, birds, rarely reptiles.

Distribution. Worldwide, mainly in Holarctic zone.

Species included. About 150.

Remarks. Authors of the last revision of Neotrombicula ( Vercammen-Grandjean & Kolebinova 1985) significantly expanded this genus by including some genera closely related to it (e.g. Hirsutiella and Hoffmannina Brennan and Jones, 1959 ). In their system, Neotrombicula comprises 11 subgenera. According to Kudryashova (1998), this taxonomic decision increased the artificial nature of the genus. She considered Neotrombicula only in sensu stricto, with three subgenera differing in the presence of additional mastisetae on leg III: Neotrombicula posess only 1 (rarely 0) mastitarsala; Digenualea Vercammen-Grandjean, 1960 always posess 1 mastifemorala, 1 mastitibiala and 1–3 mastitarsalae; Polymasticula Vercammen-Grandjean and Kolebinova, 1985 has 1–2 mastitibialae, 1–3 mastitarsalae, but has no mastifemorala. Stekolnikov (2000) proposed, in addition, a new subgenus Iranotrombicula , for the group of 5 closely related species, but he had not considered the taxonomic structure of Neotrombicula in full. Fernandes and Kulkarni (2003) also do not follow the system of Vercammen-Grandjean and Kolebinova (1985) and do not use any subgeneric distinction of Neotrombicula at all. Here we also omit subgeneric names, implying that only thorough and complete new revision of this large chigger genus may constitute the base for its rational subdivision.