Neoparasitus Oudemans, 1901 (Neoparasitidae)

MAŠÁN, PETER & HALLIDAY, BRUCE, 2014, Review of the mite family Pachylaelapidae (Acari: Mesostigmata), Zootaxa 3776 (1), pp. 1-66 : 51-52

Genus Neoparasitus Oudemans, 1901 (Neoparasitidae)

Neoparasitus Oudemans, 1901: 53 . Type species Neoparasitus oudemansi Oudemans, 1901 , by monotypy (= Pachyseius quartus Vitzthum, 1926 ; synonymy by Vitzthum, 1941: 756).

Bulbogamasus Gu, Wang & Duan, 1991: 333 . Type species Bulbogamasus sinicus Gu, Wang & Duan, 1991 , by original designation. Synonymy by Moraza & Johnston (2002: 257).

Notes. Neoparasitus , as type genus of the family Neoparasitidae Oudemans, 1939 , has been classified in the same family by several later authors including Vitzthum (1941) and Baker & Wharton (1952). The family was based especially on the presence of a 3-tined palp tarsal apotele and a holodorsal shield. It originally included various genera, most of which have since been transferred to other families, especially Ameroseiidae , Laelapidae , Macrochelidae and Ologamasidae , and the family now includes only the type genus Neoparasitus .

Present knowledge of the type genus Neoparasitus was recently summarised in detail by Moraza & Johnston (2002). They considered Neoparasitus and Bulbogamasus as synonyms, and discussed problems with the classification of the genus. Moraza & Johnston left the systematic position of Neoparasitus open, stating that "although the relationships between Neoparasitus and other genera of the family Pachylaelapidae appear strong enough to consider them as members of the same family, this genus has characteristics shared with other eviphidioid families". It should be noted that the concept of Neoparasitus used by Moraza & Johnston (2002) is based on N. orientalis and N. sinicus , not the type species N. oudemansi Oudemans, 1901 .

We here retain the monotypic family Neoparasitidae in the superfamily Eviphidoidea , rather than placing Neoparasitus in either the Neoparasitinae or Pachyseiinae within the Pachylaelapidae , for the following reasons. Neoparasitus has in the female (1) a dorsal shield with more than 30 pairs of setae; (2) salivary styli well sclerotised; (3) corniculi weakly sclerotised, adjacent each to other and with hyaline fringe laterally, not horn-like; (4) cheliceral digits robust, each with a coarsely striate major tooth; (5) palp genu with seta al2 spatulate; (6) palp tarsus with elongate distal chemoreceptor; (8) exopodal platelets absent; parapodal platelets free and each well separated from peritrematal shield; (9) tarsi II–IV with minute claws and well developed empodium; (10) trochanters II−IV usually with apical dorsal spur; (11) genital setae sometimes off the epigynal shield; and in the male, (7) spermatodactyl strongly elongate and coiled.

In addition, species of Neoparasitus are mostly insecticolous species associated with coprid beetles, unlike the free-living edaphic species classified in the Pachyseiinae . The question of the correct classification and systematic placement of Neoparasitus will not be resolved until more detailed morphological analysis of these mites is carried out, including study of their developmental stages and a complete re-description of the type species Neoparasitus oudemansi Oudemans, 1901 (= Pachyseius quartus Vitzthum, 1926 ).