taxonID	type	description	language	source
A96F4B7CE964FFF8FDBBFA5BFC0FFA37.taxon	discussion	Monospecific genus erected by Kaźmierski (1996 b). The type species is A. jarema by original designation.	en	André K, Henri M. (2025): Sixty years after “ A review of the genera of the family Tydeidae ” (Acariformes: Tydeoidea: Tydeidae). Acarologia 65 (1): 149-172, DOI: 10.24349/l5vb-767l, URL: https://doi.org/10.24349/l5vb-767l
A96F4B7CE964FFF8FDBBFA04FB6EF9FF.taxon	discussion	Genus erected by Kaźmierski (1996 b). The type species, Lorryia africana Baker, 1965, was designated in the original publication.	en	André K, Henri M. (2025): Sixty years after “ A review of the genera of the family Tydeidae ” (Acariformes: Tydeoidea: Tydeidae). Acarologia 65 (1): 149-172, DOI: 10.24349/l5vb-767l, URL: https://doi.org/10.24349/l5vb-767l
A96F4B7CE964FFF8FDBBF9CCFDD5F897.taxon	discussion	It was erected by Baker (1970) as subgenus of Tydeus to accommodate three species: munsteri, kenyensis, and meyerae. These three species exhibit three different leg chaetotaxies. The type species designated by Baker (1970: 165) is Tydeus munsteri and not A. kenyensis as reported by André (1980: 107), Kaźmierski (1998 a: 354) and Silva et al. (2016: 8). The species described by Meyer and Ryke (1959) and studied by André (1980: 126) and by Ueckermann and Grout (2007) has 6 genitals [and not 4 as noted by Baker (1970: 164)] and exhibits the same phanerotaxy as the nominal subgenus Tydeus.	en	André K, Henri M. (2025): Sixty years after “ A review of the genera of the family Tydeidae ” (Acariformes: Tydeoidea: Tydeidae). Acarologia 65 (1): 149-172, DOI: 10.24349/l5vb-767l, URL: https://doi.org/10.24349/l5vb-767l
A96F4B7CE964FFF8FDBBF8A4FCFBF85F.taxon	discussion	This genus was erected by Khaustov (2022). Type species: A. hajiqanbari by original designation.	en	André K, Henri M. (2025): Sixty years after “ A review of the genera of the family Tydeidae ” (Acariformes: Tydeoidea: Tydeidae). Acarologia 65 (1): 149-172, DOI: 10.24349/l5vb-767l, URL: https://doi.org/10.24349/l5vb-767l
A96F4B7CE964FFF8FDBBF86CFC6DF806.taxon	discussion	Genus described by André (1980) with Lorryia congoensis Baker, 1970 as type species by original designation.	en	André K, Henri M. (2025): Sixty years after “ A review of the genera of the family Tydeidae ” (Acariformes: Tydeoidea: Tydeidae). Acarologia 65 (1): 149-172, DOI: 10.24349/l5vb-767l, URL: https://doi.org/10.24349/l5vb-767l
A96F4B7CE964FFF8FDBBFAEDFBC3FA4C.taxon	discussion	The history of the genus is complex and convoluted and summarized by André (2005). The type species designated by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN. 2008) is Tydeus spathulatus Oudemans, 1929 (consequently, it is also the type species of the family and superfamily).	en	André K, Henri M. (2025): Sixty years after “ A review of the genera of the family Tydeidae ” (Acariformes: Tydeoidea: Tydeidae). Acarologia 65 (1): 149-172, DOI: 10.24349/l5vb-767l, URL: https://doi.org/10.24349/l5vb-767l
A96F4B7CE963FFFFFDBBF8F6FC70F83C.taxon	discussion	The genus was erected by Thor (1931) with Tydeus cruciatus as the type species. The type species was redescribed by André (2005) in Oudemans’ collection. Synonymized with Tydeus by Baker and Wharton (1952: 191) and by Baker (1965: 99). The genus was not listed by André (1980) and by Kaźmierski (1998 a). It was restored by André (2005: 995) and catalogued by Silva et al. (2016: 9). Roughly, Lorryia sensu Kaźmierski corresponds to Brachytydeus (André, 2005: 995 ; Tempfli et al., 2015: 944 ; Akbari et al., 2015 a: 424).	en	André K, Henri M. (2025): Sixty years after “ A review of the genera of the family Tydeidae ” (Acariformes: Tydeoidea: Tydeidae). Acarologia 65 (1): 149-172, DOI: 10.24349/l5vb-767l, URL: https://doi.org/10.24349/l5vb-767l
A96F4B7CE962FFFEFD97FF15FACDFE3E.taxon	discussion	The genus was erected by Oudemans and the type species is Calotydeus croceus by original designation (Oudemans, 1937: 922). Synonymized with Tydeus by Baker and Wharton (1952: 191), synonymization repeated by Baker (1965: 100). The genus was not listed by André (1980), Kaźmierski (1998 a) and Silva et al. (2016) but was restored by André (2005: 995, 998). Among other species, the genus comprises the type species studied by Oudemans and three species described by Baker (namely arthurbakeri, cumbrensis, shawi). Pseudolorryia was synonymized with Calotydeus by André (2005: 995). A neotype from Oudemans’ collection was selected by André (2005: 996).	en	André K, Henri M. (2025): Sixty years after “ A review of the genera of the family Tydeidae ” (Acariformes: Tydeoidea: Tydeidae). Acarologia 65 (1): 149-172, DOI: 10.24349/l5vb-767l, URL: https://doi.org/10.24349/l5vb-767l
A96F4B7CE962FFFEFD97FE0DFC95FDAD.taxon	discussion	The type species by original designation of the genus erected by Kaźmierski (1996 b: 201) is based on a unique specimen of Baker (1968), Lorryia fundadorensis, which is a deutonymph the chaetotaxy of which was partly published but completed by Kaźmierski (1996 b: 201).	en	André K, Henri M. (2025): Sixty years after “ A review of the genera of the family Tydeidae ” (Acariformes: Tydeoidea: Tydeidae). Acarologia 65 (1): 149-172, DOI: 10.24349/l5vb-767l, URL: https://doi.org/10.24349/l5vb-767l
A96F4B7CE962FFFEFDBBFD7AFC2AFCFD.taxon	discussion	Subgenus erected by Kuznetsov (1973) after study of Crimean specimens and raised to full genus rank by André (1980: 113) after examination of a Canadian specimen. Not listed by Kaźmierski (1998 a) and Silva et al. (2016). The type species, Tydeus (Eotydeus) mirabilis, was assigned to Lorryia by Kaźmierski (1998 a: 336) and to Brachytydeus by Silva et al. (2016: 19).	en	André K, Henri M. (2025): Sixty years after “ A review of the genera of the family Tydeidae ” (Acariformes: Tydeoidea: Tydeidae). Acarologia 65 (1): 149-172, DOI: 10.24349/l5vb-767l, URL: https://doi.org/10.24349/l5vb-767l
A96F4B7CE962FFFEFDBBFCCAFC34FBB7.taxon	discussion	Genus erected by André (1980: 116 – 117) but without fixing a type species, which did not accord with Art. 13.3 of ICZN (” To be available, every new genusgroup name published after 1930 … must … be accompanied by the fixation of a type species in the original publication ″). Another discrepancy with the code (the inclusion of the type species of another genus) was outlined previously. Genus treated by Kaźmierski (1989). The 3 species described by Baker (namely arthurbakeri, cumbrensis, shawi) were transferred to Calotydeus by André (2005: 995, ambiguous remarks), the two Belgian species have a seta on coxa I and remained in the so-called genus. Synonymized with Calotydeus by André (2021: 1026).	en	André K, Henri M. (2025): Sixty years after “ A review of the genera of the family Tydeidae ” (Acariformes: Tydeoidea: Tydeidae). Acarologia 65 (1): 149-172, DOI: 10.24349/l5vb-767l, URL: https://doi.org/10.24349/l5vb-767l
A96F4B7CE962FFFEFDBBFB83FC1BFB7F.taxon	discussion	Genus proposed by Schiess (1981: 84) and synonymized with Tydeus by Kaźmierski (1998 a: 342).	en	André K, Henri M. (2025): Sixty years after “ A review of the genera of the family Tydeidae ” (Acariformes: Tydeoidea: Tydeidae). Acarologia 65 (1): 149-172, DOI: 10.24349/l5vb-767l, URL: https://doi.org/10.24349/l5vb-767l
A96F4B7CE962FFFEFDBBFB4CFB85FB27.taxon	discussion	The type species of the genus erected by André (1980: 117) is Lorryia macquillani Baker, 1968, by original designation.	en	André K, Henri M. (2025): Sixty years after “ A review of the genera of the family Tydeidae ” (Acariformes: Tydeoidea: Tydeidae). Acarologia 65 (1): 149-172, DOI: 10.24349/l5vb-767l, URL: https://doi.org/10.24349/l5vb-767l
A96F4B7CE962FFFEFDBBFAF4FBBAFAEF.taxon	discussion	Monospecific genus described by Kaźmierski (1996 b) with Kenlorryia masaii as type species by original designation.	en	André K, Henri M. (2025): Sixty years after “ A review of the genera of the family Tydeidae ” (Acariformes: Tydeoidea: Tydeidae). Acarologia 65 (1): 149-172, DOI: 10.24349/l5vb-767l, URL: https://doi.org/10.24349/l5vb-767l
A96F4B7CE962FFFEFDBBFABCFBEEFA56.taxon	discussion	Monospecific genus erected by André (1980: 117) with Lorryia grewia Baker, 1968 as type species by original designation.	en	André K, Henri M. (2025): Sixty years after “ A review of the genera of the family Tydeidae ” (Acariformes: Tydeoidea: Tydeidae). Acarologia 65 (1): 149-172, DOI: 10.24349/l5vb-767l, URL: https://doi.org/10.24349/l5vb-767l
A96F4B7CE962FFFEFDBBFA65FB16F9E7.taxon	discussion	Replacement name proposed by Kammerer (2006: 269) for Venilia, name already used for molluscs, insects, birds … Type species: Paralorryia liberta Livshitz, 1973. Venilia is a junior synonym of Tydeus according to André (1980: 154) or junior synonym of Brachytydeus according to André (2005: 995). Senior homonym of Kuznetsovia, replacement name advanced by Doweld (2016) for a Crustacea.	en	André K, Henri M. (2025): Sixty years after “ A review of the genera of the family Tydeidae ” (Acariformes: Tydeoidea: Tydeidae). Acarologia 65 (1): 149-172, DOI: 10.24349/l5vb-767l, URL: https://doi.org/10.24349/l5vb-767l
A96F4B7CE962FFFEFDBBF9B4FB03F970.taxon	discussion	Replacement name proposed by André (2021: 1030) for Tydides, name already used for insects. The genus was erected by Kuznetsov (1975) with Tydides ulter Kuznetsov, 1975 as type species by original designation.	en	André K, Henri M. (2025): Sixty years after “ A review of the genera of the family Tydeidae ” (Acariformes: Tydeoidea: Tydeidae). Acarologia 65 (1): 149-172, DOI: 10.24349/l5vb-767l, URL: https://doi.org/10.24349/l5vb-767l
A96F4B7CE962FFFDFDBBF95FFD1BFDC0.taxon	discussion	First, monospecific genus erected by Berlese (1908: 15) with Lasiotydaeus glycyphaginus as type species. Descriptions are short: 6 lines for the genus, 3 lines for the species collected in Florence (Italy). The prodorsum illustrated by Berlese (1910: plate 18, fig. 6) has only 3 pairs of setae and it is difficult to conclude if it is pro- or recurved ; however, the three setae are in line as in mammilaris (fig. 8, prodorsum recurved) and their alignment contrasts with the adjacent figure (fig. 7) in which the prodorsum is procurved with 4 setae arranged in a zigzag. Lastly, the dorsal opithosomal pattern drawn on that figure is simple, it consists of several transverse rows of 4 setae each and shows no trace of the dorsal migration of the second lateral setae (his L 2) evoked by Baker (1965). It was divided in 2 subgenera by Berlese (1910: 211), the nominal subgenus with 2 species and Melanotydaeus with 5 species. The genus was synonymized with Tydeus by Baker and Wharton (1952: 191 ; with a question mark). The genus — monosubgeneric — was restored by Baker (1965: 101) but was based on a Californian species (L. krantzi). The prodorsum of the Californian species described by Baker (1965: 101 - 102) and André (1980: 118) is procurved, the opithosomal pattern is different from that observed in tydeid mites, the tarsus I has 12 setae (vs 8 in Tydeinae), the Californian mite is not congeneric with the Italian type species (which seems to be a real Tydeidae even if it is impossible to know what the genus actually is) and appears to be an Iolinidae Tydaeolinae genus inquirendus.	en	André K, Henri M. (2025): Sixty years after “ A review of the genera of the family Tydeidae ” (Acariformes: Tydeoidea: Tydeidae). Acarologia 65 (1): 149-172, DOI: 10.24349/l5vb-767l, URL: https://doi.org/10.24349/l5vb-767l
A96F4B7CE961FFFDFDBBFDEFFABAFD33.taxon	discussion	Monospecific genus erected by Oudemans (1925) with L. superba as type species. The very short description of the initial paper was completed in a subsequent article (Oudemans, 1928 a). The whole story is reported by André (2023). The genus was not listed by André (1980). The holotype and unique specimen of the type species is lost. Monospecific and, even recently, confused or synonymized with Brachytydeus (e. g. Mondin et al., 2016 ; Khaustov et al., 2020 ; Nuvolini et al., 2020)	en	André K, Henri M. (2025): Sixty years after “ A review of the genera of the family Tydeidae ” (Acariformes: Tydeoidea: Tydeidae). Acarologia 65 (1): 149-172, DOI: 10.24349/l5vb-767l, URL: https://doi.org/10.24349/l5vb-767l
A96F4B7CE961FFFDFDBBFD00FAAAFC29.taxon	diagnosis	Melanotydaeus was first described as a subgenus of Lasiotydaeus (Berlese, 1910: 211) and was raised to full generic level by Thor (1933: 48). It was divided into two subgenera, Melanotydaeus and Stylotydeus and synonymized with Tydeus by Baker and Wharton (1952: 191). It was restored by Baker (1965: 102) but was not keyed out. “ The placing of Melanotydaeus as a synonym of Tydeus by Baker and Wharton must at present be considered to be in error ” commented Baker (1965: 102) who concluded “ The type, in the Berlese collection, is in extremely poor condition, and it is impossible to know what the genus actually is ”. Genus inquirendus.	en	André K, Henri M. (2025): Sixty years after “ A review of the genera of the family Tydeidae ” (Acariformes: Tydeoidea: Tydeidae). Acarologia 65 (1): 149-172, DOI: 10.24349/l5vb-767l, URL: https://doi.org/10.24349/l5vb-767l
A96F4B7CE961FFFDFDBBFBF6FCDCFB91.taxon	discussion	Genus erected by André (1985 a: 244) with M. macrosolenus as type species by original designation.	en	André K, Henri M. (2025): Sixty years after “ A review of the genera of the family Tydeidae ” (Acariformes: Tydeoidea: Tydeidae). Acarologia 65 (1): 149-172, DOI: 10.24349/l5vb-767l, URL: https://doi.org/10.24349/l5vb-767l
A96F4B7CE961FFFDFDBBFBBDFC51FB59.taxon	discussion	Genus advanced by André (1980: 118) with Lorryia armaghensis Baker, 1968 as type species by original designation.	en	André K, Henri M. (2025): Sixty years after “ A review of the genera of the family Tydeidae ” (Acariformes: Tydeoidea: Tydeidae). Acarologia 65 (1): 149-172, DOI: 10.24349/l5vb-767l, URL: https://doi.org/10.24349/l5vb-767l
A96F4B7CE961FFFDFDBBFB66FB36FB1E.taxon	discussion	Genus proposed by Kaźmierski (1996 b) with Tydeus longichelus Momen & El-Bagoury, 1989 as type species by original designation.	en	André K, Henri M. (2025): Sixty years after “ A review of the genera of the family Tydeidae ” (Acariformes: Tydeoidea: Tydeidae). Acarologia 65 (1): 149-172, DOI: 10.24349/l5vb-767l, URL: https://doi.org/10.24349/l5vb-767l
A96F4B7CE961FFFDFDBBFB2DFC6DFAC6.taxon	discussion	Genus erected by El-Bagoury and Momen (1990) with N. aegyptica as type species by original designation.	en	André K, Henri M. (2025): Sixty years after “ A review of the genera of the family Tydeidae ” (Acariformes: Tydeoidea: Tydeidae). Acarologia 65 (1): 149-172, DOI: 10.24349/l5vb-767l, URL: https://doi.org/10.24349/l5vb-767l
A96F4B7CE961FFFDFDBBFAD4FC5BFA8E.taxon	discussion	Genus advanced by André (1980: 127) with Retetydeus boycei Baker, 1944 as type species by original designation.	en	André K, Henri M. (2025): Sixty years after “ A review of the genera of the family Tydeidae ” (Acariformes: Tydeoidea: Tydeidae). Acarologia 65 (1): 149-172, DOI: 10.24349/l5vb-767l, URL: https://doi.org/10.24349/l5vb-767l
A96F4B7CE961FFFDFDBBFA9CFC88FA77.taxon	discussion	Genus erected by Kaźmierski (1996 b) with N. paraferula as type species by original designation.	en	André K, Henri M. (2025): Sixty years after “ A review of the genera of the family Tydeidae ” (Acariformes: Tydeoidea: Tydeidae). Acarologia 65 (1): 149-172, DOI: 10.24349/l5vb-767l, URL: https://doi.org/10.24349/l5vb-767l
A96F4B7CE961FFFDFDBBFA43FBA6FA3F.taxon	discussion	Monospefic genus erected by Ueckermann and Grout (2007) for O. stepheni, type species by original designation.	en	André K, Henri M. (2025): Sixty years after “ A review of the genera of the family Tydeidae ” (Acariformes: Tydeoidea: Tydeidae). Acarologia 65 (1): 149-172, DOI: 10.24349/l5vb-767l, URL: https://doi.org/10.24349/l5vb-767l
A96F4B7CE961FFFDFDBBFA0BFDC8F94C.taxon	discussion	Genus erected by André (1980: 127 – 128) with Tydeus goetzi as type species by original designation. However, André (1980: 128) mistakenly placed Tydeus munsteri, the type species of Afrotydeus, in Orthotydeus. Kaźmierski (1989) proposed a new combination, Lorryia. The genus was synonymized with Tydeus by André (2005: 996).	en	André K, Henri M. (2025): Sixty years after “ A review of the genera of the family Tydeidae ” (Acariformes: Tydeoidea: Tydeidae). Acarologia 65 (1): 149-172, DOI: 10.24349/l5vb-767l, URL: https://doi.org/10.24349/l5vb-767l
A96F4B7CE961FFFDFDBBF95AFBD9F8F8.taxon	discussion	Genus erected by Baker (1965) to receive Tydeinae with longitudinal striae between setae D 2. Type species by original designation: Lorryia cumbrensis Baker, 1944. Kaźmierski (1989) proposed a new combination. The genus was listed by Kaźmierski (1998 a: 340) and by Silva et al. (2016: 32) (Fig. 1).	en	André K, Henri M. (2025): Sixty years after “ A review of the genera of the family Tydeidae ” (Acariformes: Tydeoidea: Tydeidae). Acarologia 65 (1): 149-172, DOI: 10.24349/l5vb-767l, URL: https://doi.org/10.24349/l5vb-767l
A96F4B7CE961FFFDFE61F8C6FA84F8A0.taxon	discussion	Monospecific genus proposed by André (1980: 142) with Tydeus (Afrotydeus) meyerae Baker, 1970 as type species by original designation.	en	André K, Henri M. (2025): Sixty years after “ A review of the genera of the family Tydeidae ” (Acariformes: Tydeoidea: Tydeidae). Acarologia 65 (1): 149-172, DOI: 10.24349/l5vb-767l, URL: https://doi.org/10.24349/l5vb-767l
A96F4B7CE961FFFCFE61F88EFDCFFE93.taxon	discussion	This subgenus of Tydeus erected by André and Naudo (1965) and recognized by Baker (1970: 164). It was not listed by André (1980), Kaźmierski (1998 a) and Silva et al. (2016) (Figure 1). The type species by original designation, Tydeus schusteri, was assigned to Lorryia by Kaźmierski (1998 a: 336) and to Brachytydeus by Silva et al. (2016: 24). No formulae were given in the description but the original figure 3 allows to identify the mite as belonging to the genus Tydeus (Fe II with 2 setae, Fe III with a single seta).	en	André K, Henri M. (2025): Sixty years after “ A review of the genera of the family Tydeidae ” (Acariformes: Tydeoidea: Tydeidae). Acarologia 65 (1): 149-172, DOI: 10.24349/l5vb-767l, URL: https://doi.org/10.24349/l5vb-767l
A96F4B7CE960FFFCFE61F960FCDCF91B.taxon	discussion	Monospecific genus proposed by Spain (1969) for A. kirstenae, type species by original designation.	en	André K, Henri M. (2025): Sixty years after “ A review of the genera of the family Tydeidae ” (Acariformes: Tydeoidea: Tydeidae). Acarologia 65 (1): 149-172, DOI: 10.24349/l5vb-767l, URL: https://doi.org/10.24349/l5vb-767l
A96F4B7CE960FFFCFE61F924FCDCF8DF.taxon	discussion	Monospecific genus erected by Kaźmierski (1996 b) for N. deserta, type species by original designation.	en	André K, Henri M. (2025): Sixty years after “ A review of the genera of the family Tydeidae ” (Acariformes: Tydeoidea: Tydeidae). Acarologia 65 (1): 149-172, DOI: 10.24349/l5vb-767l, URL: https://doi.org/10.24349/l5vb-767l
A96F4B7CE960FFFCFE61F8E8FBEAF882.taxon	discussion	Genus erected by André (1980: 142 - 143) with Lorryia indonesiensis Baker, 1970 as type species by original designation.	en	André K, Henri M. (2025): Sixty years after “ A review of the genera of the family Tydeidae ” (Acariformes: Tydeoidea: Tydeidae). Acarologia 65 (1): 149-172, DOI: 10.24349/l5vb-767l, URL: https://doi.org/10.24349/l5vb-767l
A96F4B7CE960FFFCFE61F8ADFC5EF846.taxon	discussion	Genus proposed by André (1980: 143) with Lorryia kevani Marshall, 1970 as type species by original designation.	en	André K, Henri M. (2025): Sixty years after “ A review of the genera of the family Tydeidae ” (Acariformes: Tydeoidea: Tydeidae). Acarologia 65 (1): 149-172, DOI: 10.24349/l5vb-767l, URL: https://doi.org/10.24349/l5vb-767l
A96F4B7CE960FFFCFE61FEBCFA7CFE57.taxon	discussion	The genus was erected by Kaźmierski (1989) and synonymized with Calotydeus by André (2005: 995). Type species: P. edwardbakeri by original designation.	en	André K, Henri M. (2025): Sixty years after “ A review of the genera of the family Tydeidae ” (Acariformes: Tydeoidea: Tydeidae). Acarologia 65 (1): 149-172, DOI: 10.24349/l5vb-767l, URL: https://doi.org/10.24349/l5vb-767l
A96F4B7CE960FFFCFE61FE60FABCFDE0.taxon	discussion	Monospecific genus advanced by Momen and Lundqvist (1996), synonymized with Lorryia by Kaźmierski (1998 a: 293). The genus is listed by Silva et al. (2016: 34) but the type species, Q. sleipneri, was assigned to Quadrotydeus on page 34 and to Brachytydeus on page 25. The type species by original designation, Q. sleipneri, was assigned to Brachytydeus by Khaustov and Khaustov (2023: 268).	en	André K, Henri M. (2025): Sixty years after “ A review of the genera of the family Tydeidae ” (Acariformes: Tydeoidea: Tydeidae). Acarologia 65 (1): 149-172, DOI: 10.24349/l5vb-767l, URL: https://doi.org/10.24349/l5vb-767l
A96F4B7CE960FFFCFE61FDCBFC5EFDA4.taxon	discussion	Genus erected by Kaźmierski (1996 b) with Tydeus (T.) ricensis Baker, 1970 as type species by original designation.	en	André K, Henri M. (2025): Sixty years after “ A review of the genera of the family Tydeidae ” (Acariformes: Tydeoidea: Tydeidae). Acarologia 65 (1): 149-172, DOI: 10.24349/l5vb-767l, URL: https://doi.org/10.24349/l5vb-767l
A96F4B7CE960FFFCFE61FD8FFDCAFCF1.taxon	discussion	Monospecific subgenus of Lorryia erected by Thor (1933: 54) for Lorryia (Melanotydaeus) raphignathoides Berlese 1910, type species by monotypy. Division not accepted by Baker (1944: 215) and recalled in Baker (1968: 987). Again, synonymized with Lorryia by Baker (1965: 105) and with Brachytydeus by André (2005: 995).	en	André K, Henri M. (2025): Sixty years after “ A review of the genera of the family Tydeidae ” (Acariformes: Tydeoidea: Tydeidae). Acarologia 65 (1): 149-172, DOI: 10.24349/l5vb-767l, URL: https://doi.org/10.24349/l5vb-767l
A96F4B7CE960FFFCFE61FCDAFC5BFBDE.taxon	discussion	Genus erected by Thor (1931) with R. catenulatus as the type species. Last used in mite descriptions by Baker (1944) for boycei and doddsi. The genus was listed — for the last time! — by Baker and Wharton (1952: 192), with catenulatus as type species. A synonymization with Lorryia was advanced by Baker (1965: 105). Although the type species, catenulatus, was never redescribed from Norway, it was included in the genus Brachytydeus by Silva et al. (2016: 13). The specimens of R. viviparus studied by Grandjean (1938) belong to Brachytydeus.	en	André K, Henri M. (2025): Sixty years after “ A review of the genera of the family Tydeidae ” (Acariformes: Tydeoidea: Tydeidae). Acarologia 65 (1): 149-172, DOI: 10.24349/l5vb-767l, URL: https://doi.org/10.24349/l5vb-767l
A96F4B7CE960FFFCFE61FBE9FB94FBA4.taxon	discussion	Subgenus erected by Thor (1933: 50) and synonymized with Tydeus by Baker and Wharton (1952: 191). No type species designated. The two component species (brevistylus and styliger) are species inquirendae.	en	André K, Henri M. (2025): Sixty years after “ A review of the genera of the family Tydeidae ” (Acariformes: Tydeoidea: Tydeidae). Acarologia 65 (1): 149-172, DOI: 10.24349/l5vb-767l, URL: https://doi.org/10.24349/l5vb-767l
A96F4B7CE960FFFCFDBBFB70FC13FB0D.taxon	discussion	Monospecific genus erected by Kuznetsov (1975) for T. ulter. Junior homonym of the genus Tydides Stål, 1865 (Insecta, Reduviidae). Replacement name: Kuznetsovtydides provided by André (2021: 1030).	en	André K, Henri M. (2025): Sixty years after “ A review of the genera of the family Tydeidae ” (Acariformes: Tydeoidea: Tydeidae). Acarologia 65 (1): 149-172, DOI: 10.24349/l5vb-767l, URL: https://doi.org/10.24349/l5vb-767l
A96F4B7CE960FFFCFE61FB16FC23FA56.taxon	discussion	The genus was erected by Baker (1965: 103) for species with a basketweave pattern. The type species designated by Baker, Tydeus granulosus Canestrini, 1886 a, is a species inquirenda and has no type. Synonymized with Tydeus by André (1980: 154). The species initially assigned to Tydulosus are included in Brachytydeus and Tydeus by Silva et al. (2016).	en	André K, Henri M. (2025): Sixty years after “ A review of the genera of the family Tydeidae ” (Acariformes: Tydeoidea: Tydeidae). Acarologia 65 (1): 149-172, DOI: 10.24349/l5vb-767l, URL: https://doi.org/10.24349/l5vb-767l
A96F4B7CE960FFFCFE61F851FBDBF82C.taxon	discussion	Monospecific genus advanced by Kaźmierski (1996 b) for Paralorryia grewiae Ueckermann, 1988, type species by original designation. The type species is described in Ueckermann and Smith Meyer, 1988: 46 - 47.	en	André K, Henri M. (2025): Sixty years after “ A review of the genera of the family Tydeidae ” (Acariformes: Tydeoidea: Tydeidae). Acarologia 65 (1): 149-172, DOI: 10.24349/l5vb-767l, URL: https://doi.org/10.24349/l5vb-767l
A96F4B7CE960FFFCFE61FA61FA19F9E0.taxon	discussion	Genus erected by Kuznetsov (1979) comprising 7 species reviewed by Kaźmierski (1981). Junior synonym of Tydeus according to André (1980: 154), junior synonym of Lorryia according to Kaźmierski (1989) and junior synonym of Brachytydeus according to André (2005: 995). Junior homonym of a mollusc, successive replacement names: Kuznetsovia and Kuznetsovvenilia. Type species: Paralorryia liberta Livshitz, 1973.	en	André K, Henri M. (2025): Sixty years after “ A review of the genera of the family Tydeidae ” (Acariformes: Tydeoidea: Tydeidae). Acarologia 65 (1): 149-172, DOI: 10.24349/l5vb-767l, URL: https://doi.org/10.24349/l5vb-767l
A96F4B7CE96FFFF7FE7EFBACFD71F95D.taxon	discussion	The practical agreement which exists between specialists as to the delimitation of genera varies from one zoological group to another. In many groups, this agreement between specialists is poor, and this results in a great instability of the generic classification (Dubois, 1988: 16). Figure 2 gives a histogram based on the monographs, books and catalog listed previously and two cumulative genus description curves since 1831. The first curve provides the number of all new genera and subgenera erected during each decade while the second takes into account synonymies and restoration. The maximum number of genera and subgenera described in Tydeidae is 43 (a total of 45 names – 2 replacement names). After synonymization and restoration, the current number of genera and subgenera in Tydeidae is 30 (Fig. 2). The instability evoked by Dubois (1988) is discernable through the gap between the two curves. Depending on the curve selected, the number of genera at the beginning of the 2011 - 2021 decade amounts to 29 - 43 and is close to the estimation by Zhang et al. (2011: 130), 30 genera. Both curves apparently begin to flatten during the last 40 years. Number of species in Tydeidae A common approach to estimating the total number of extant species in a taxonomic group is to extrapolate from the temporal pattern of known species descriptions (Bebber et al. 2007). This perspective is not new in mites and was used by Wharton (1964) for mites and Trombiculidae and by André and N’Dri (2013) for mites and Tydeoidea. Yet, such an approach is not recommended due to the data weakness: only 433 tydeid species have been described, figure 3 shows the beginning of a logistic curve and there is no long-term trend sensu Edie et al. (2017). Nevertheless, a turning point is apparent from figure 3 and is indicated by a double arrow. Both cumulative curves suggest a change in the description rate manifest trough the slopes estimated before and after the 1951 - 1960 decade. This is confirmed by the decade trend in species description with a maximum number of 83 species described in a single decade. The turning point coincides with the description of Lorryia formosa by Cooreman (1958) and seems to reflect the influence of agronomic practices. However, another approach with a new “ Pie of Life ” was proposed by Larsen et al. (2017) and was based, concerning mites, on Walter and Proctor (2013). The number of described Acari species (including Acariformes and Parasitiformes) is approximately 55,000 (Krantz, 2009: 1). In such a context, 433 described tydeid morphospecies represent less than 1 percent of described Acari (0.79 %). If assumptions of Larsen et al. (2017: 248 ; appendix 2 on animal richness, 10.2 million mite species including morpho- and cryptic species) are accepted, this yields 80,301 tydeid species. In the end, if a ratio of 5.9 cryptic species per morphologically based arthropod species is recognized (Larsen et al. 2017 ; appendix 1), this yields 11,638 tydeid morphospecies. 433 described tydeid morphospecies would then represent only 3.72 % of estimated tydeid morphospecies in the world, less than the 10 % recalled by Lindquist (2001: 55) for the eriophyoid fauna. Obviously, there is no problem of species inflation as in mammals (Zachos et al., 2013). Only 414 tydeid species had been described for the 2001 - 2010 decade vs 340 estimated by Zhang et al. (2011). Τhe temporal pattern of known species descriptions was not modified by synonymies (4 cases) and restoration (2 cases). Number of names in Tydeidae Many binomina were given to a specific mite: 2.05 ± 0.76 for all tydeid species. A record is detained by the genus Brachytydeus. For instance, zaheri has five objective synonyms plus a replacement name (not counted): Paralorryia (original combination), Brachytydeus, Kuznetsovia, Lorryia, Tydeus and Venilia. The number of binomina assigned to early described species is close to one (Figure 4). For instance, only a single combination has been used for velox Koch described in 1836: Tydeus velox. The same applies for recently described species, i. e. for Brachytydeus altaicus described by Khaustov and Khaustov in 2023, although there hasn’t been enough time to propose objective synonyms to B. altaicus. There are large variations in between. A maximum value (3.5) is reached for species described in the 1881 - 1890 decade. For instance, there are 5 combinations for granulosus described by Canestrini (1886 b): successively Tydeus, Tydulosus, Venilia, Lorryia and Brachytydeus. The trends observed in recent decades seems to indicate a decrease of subsequent combinations. The 17 species directly assigned to Brachytydeus were all described after 2008. Toward a new concept of Tydeidae In the Thorian sense, Tydeidae was “ difficult to characterize ” (Baker, 1965: 96). In the modern sense, a key character advanced by André and Fain (2000) is the recurved prodorsum. This character is shared with Triophtydeidae but is very practical to recognize “ real ” Tydeidae in the old illustrations of Berlese and even in drawings of Baker (1965). The importance of the ecdysial cleavage line in Acariformes was discussed by Norton and Kethley (1994). A second key character advanced by André and Fain (2000) is the presence of only two eye-spots vs three in Triophtydeidae. Those spots are silver granules not associated with a lens such as that found in Ereynetidae. As stressed by those authors, the presence of two eye-spots is not ambiguous. In contrast, their absence may refer to a nonobservance, i. e. the failure to observe them (e. g. the spots disappeared) or to a real absence (see Kaźmierski, 1989: 302 ; André and Fain, 2000: 416). The problem directly concerns Australotydaeus kirstenae in which no eye-spots have been reported and is still more puzzling when a population of Tydeus harbors 3 eyes as observed by André (1985 b: 192) and recalled by André and Fain (2000: 412). As noticed by André and Fain (2000: 437), the family Tydeidae is also characterized by the loss of eugenitals in females and a reduction of the cis-acetabular area. In the calyptostatic tritonymph drawn by Kuznetsov (1980: 1020, his fig. B), the 2 genital openings usually observed in tritonymphs are absent. This reduction is accompanied by the decrease of the chaetome, usually 6 genital setae on both sides of imagines. A decrease of genitals is observed in Acanthodides, Apolorryia, Eotydeus, Momenia, Neolorryia, Pertydeus and Quadrotydeus. step) ; H – Apotele setiform (De Vis et al. 2024) ; I – Apotele absent (Knop & Hoy, 1983). Homologous structures have the same pattern. Birefringent structures are outlined (in red in electronic format). Most steps correspond to a species and an article indicated between brackets. A – E: legs I to IV ; F – I: leg I only. The absence of genitals was even observed in the calyptostasic tritonymph of Brachytydeus (Kuznetov, 1980). Similarly, there are 3 aggenitals (instead of 4) in Apolorryia and Eotydeus. Such a reduction of genitals may be unilateral (occurring on one side of the body) as noticed by Momen and El-Baghouri (1994), Momen and Solhøy (1996), Momen and Lundquist (1996) and Kaźmierski (1989). The generic significance of this character was questioned by Kaźmierski (1989: 300 - 301) and the trait will be used to delineate subgenera only. Furthermore, the unilateral presence of 7 genitals reported by Momen and El-Baghouri (1994) and Momen and Solhoy (1996) demonstrates that two forces are governing the evolution of Tydeidae. On the one hand, the fluctuating asymmetry seems to be caused by random developmental accidents (RDA in Figure 6) not corrected by homeostatic mechanisms normally resulting in a perfect bilateral symmetry (Leponce et al., 2001). On the other hand, Grandjean (1942) gave an evolutive significance to the unilateral changes he called vertitions (V in Figure 6) and governed by homeostatic mechanisms. A last distinguishing trait, not evoked by André and Fain (2000), is the presence of at most 8 setae on tarsus I in all Tydeinae and Pretydeinae. Australotydaeinae has a special chaetotaxy with 10 setae on tarsus I and exhibits intermediate characters with other Tydeoidea. This counting is based on the designation system developed by André (1981 b). Other formulae are variable. The most frequent epimeral formula is (3 - 1 - 4 - 2). (3 - 1 - 4 - 3) has been observed in Krantzlorryia, Pretydeus and Tyndareus. Evolutionary plasticity of Tydeidae An evolutionary trait-based approach was selected by André (2023) to define the genus Lorryia. In this approach, Tydeidae anticipate the evolutionary traits found in other families of Tydeoidea. For instance, the reduction of chaetotaxy of tarsus I and the dactyly observed in Tydeidae may be conceived as a vast evolutionary move leading to the fusion or loss of apotele I and the resulting palpian evolution of leg I observed in Iolinidae (Figure 5). Another aspect of evolutionary plasticity of Tydeidae is shown by the reduction of the cis-acetabular area and the decrease of the chaetome which also anticipate the evolution of Iolinidae. A further facet of evolutionary plasticity of Tydeidae is shown by the partly recessed solenidion, φI, observed in Pretydeus. It does not differ from the ereynetal organ of some ereynetid larva. A last aspect of evolutionary plasticity of Tydeidae concerns the ontogeny. Apart from a calyptostatic prelarva, described and drawn by Kuznetsov (1980: 1020, his fig. A) and photographed by André and N’Dri (2013: 60, their fig. 50), the ontogeny of Tydeidae includes one six-legged larva (larviparity, drawn by Thor 1933: 52, his fig. 62) followed by four eight-legged stases: the protonymph, deutonymph, tritonymph and imago (♀ and ♂). In other words, adulthood (sexual maturity) is observed in imagines only. Based on laboratory colonies (Brickill, 1958 ; Kuznetsov, 1980 ; Liguori et al. 2002 ; Hernandes et al., 2006 ; Silva et al., 2014), there is no missing stase as in spider mites (André and Van Impe, 2012) but the tritonymph can be reduced to a calyptostasis as presented and illustrated by Kuznetsov (1980: 1020, his fig. B). This recalls the intervening calyptostases observed in ereynetid Speleognatinae (Fain, 1972 ; André and Fain, 1991). Nomenclatural acts Nomenclatural acts (1) to (8) concern families, genera and subgenera, subsequent acts concern species. (2) Afrotydeus and its type species, Tydeus munsteri, exhibits the same phanerotaxy as the nominal subgenus Tydeus. Afrotydeus, be it a subgenus or a genus, is thus considered a junior synonym of Tydeus. Topotypes or types of both type species were examined. Consequently, the original combination, namely Tydeus munsteri, has to be used again and any other combination must be set aside. Tydeus (A.) meyerae was moved to Perafrotydeus by André (1980: 142), the other species are placed in a new genus defined hereafter (act 4). (3) Similarly, the type species of the genus Paralorryia, cumbrensis, has the same organotaxy (leg and idiosoma) as croceus, the type species of Calotydeus. Types of both species were examined. As a result, Paralorryia is thus considered a junior synonym of Calotydeus. (4) Neoafrotydeus new genus Zoobank: 1 EC 6999 B- 930 C- 40 AB- 9 AB 7 - 4 BF 259 A 477 CC Neoafrotydeus new genus is erected with kenyensis as type species to accommodate Tydeus (Afrotydeus) flabellifer, T. (A.) kenyensis, A. novaezealandiae, A. smileyi and A. zairensis, species currently assigned to Afrotydeus, genus synonymized with Tydeus as noted above. (5) Neohomeotydeus new genus Zoobank: CAAAE 9 E 6 - 4 DB 5 - 441 C- 92 CC- 51 B 15227 DB 96 Homeotydeus was erected by André (1980) but is not in conformity with ICZN. The 3 species described by Baker (namely arthurbakeri, cumbrensis, shawi) have a seta on trochanter I and were transferred to Calotydeus by André (2005: 995, ambiguous remarks.). The other two species, namely H. bipilis and H. formosus, have a nude trochanter I and are accommodated in a new genus, Neohomeotydeus with H. formosus as type species. (6) Pertydeus was described as a subgenus of Tydeus and exhibits the same leg chaetotaxy as the nominal genus Tydeus. The number of genitals is however 5 (vs 6 in Tydeus). Pertydeus thus re-established in its pristine state and restored as a subgenus of Tydeus (rest. comb.). (7) Similarly, Quadrotydeus is considered to be a subgenus of Brachytydeus characterized by the same leg phanerotaxy but with only 4 genitals (new comb.). (8) Similarly, Eotydeus is considered to be a subgenus of Brachytydeus characterized by the same leg phanerotaxy but with only 2 genitals as in the original description (new comb.). (9) Tydeus nieu (w) kerkeni. André (2005) was naming the species after Dr Erik J. van Nieukerken, yet the name was published as nieuwkerkeni, an incorrect original spelling. Under art. 32.5 of ICZN, the correct spelling is emended to nieukerkeni. A “ justified emendation ” (Art. 33.2.2), if corrected under article 32.5, results in the same author and date as the original name. (10) Homeotydeus formosa, the binomen used by André (1984), does not respect the gender agreement. The original combination corrected under art. 34.2 of ICZN is Homeotydeus formosus which is the type species of the genus Neohomeotydeus. Table 1 shows that some genera are very close and that the difference may concern only a single seta: Brachytydeus – Kuznetsovtydides (seta on trochanter I), Calotydeus – Tydeus (seta on femur II). Table 1 also masks the within diversity of genera. For instance, chaetotaxy of leg II in Idiolorryia is displayed (6 - 2 - 1 - 3 - 0) while it has been observed a single seta on tibia. Variations in leg chaetotaxy was explored by Momen and Lundqvist (1993). Similarly, there are 4 or 5 genitals in Neolorryia, 2 to 4 in Eotydeus. Consequently, the division into subgenera is debatable due to the high variability of the number of genitals. Edlorryia based on a deutonymph, Lasiotydaeus and Melanotydaeus (genus inquirendus) do not figure in table 1.	en	André K, Henri M. (2025): Sixty years after “ A review of the genera of the family Tydeidae ” (Acariformes: Tydeoidea: Tydeidae). Acarologia 65 (1): 149-172, DOI: 10.24349/l5vb-767l, URL: https://doi.org/10.24349/l5vb-767l
A96F4B7CE96FFFF7FE7EFBACFD71F95D.taxon	discussion	and its type species, Tydeus munsteri, exhibits the same phanerotaxy as the nominal subgenus Tydeus. Afrotydeus, be it a subgenus or a genus, is thus considered a junior synonym of Tydeus. Topotypes or types of both type species were examined. Consequently, the original combination, namely Tydeus munsteri, has to be used again and any other combination must be set aside. Tydeus (A.) meyerae was moved to Perafrotydeus by André (1980: 142), the other species are placed in a new genus defined hereafter (act 4).	en	André K, Henri M. (2025): Sixty years after “ A review of the genera of the family Tydeidae ” (Acariformes: Tydeoidea: Tydeidae). Acarologia 65 (1): 149-172, DOI: 10.24349/l5vb-767l, URL: https://doi.org/10.24349/l5vb-767l
A96F4B7CE96FFFF7FE7EFBACFD71F95D.taxon	discussion	Neoafrotydeus new genus is erected with kenyensis as type species to accommodate Tydeus (Afrotydeus) flabellifer, T. (A.) kenyensis, A. novaezealandiae, A. smileyi and A. zairensis, species currently assigned to Afrotydeus, genus synonymized with Tydeus as noted above.	en	André K, Henri M. (2025): Sixty years after “ A review of the genera of the family Tydeidae ” (Acariformes: Tydeoidea: Tydeidae). Acarologia 65 (1): 149-172, DOI: 10.24349/l5vb-767l, URL: https://doi.org/10.24349/l5vb-767l
A96F4B7CE96FFFF7FE7EFBACFD71F95D.taxon	discussion	Homeotydeus was erected by André (1980) but is not in conformity with ICZN. The 3 species described by Baker (namely arthurbakeri, cumbrensis, shawi) have a seta on trochanter I and were transferred to Calotydeus by André (2005: 995, ambiguous remarks.). The other two species, namely H. bipilis and H. formosus, have a nude trochanter I and are accommodated in a new genus, Neohomeotydeus with H. formosus as type species.	en	André K, Henri M. (2025): Sixty years after “ A review of the genera of the family Tydeidae ” (Acariformes: Tydeoidea: Tydeidae). Acarologia 65 (1): 149-172, DOI: 10.24349/l5vb-767l, URL: https://doi.org/10.24349/l5vb-767l
A96F4B7CE96FFFF7FE7EFBACFD71F95D.taxon	discussion	was described as a subgenus of Tydeus and exhibits the same leg chaetotaxy as the nominal genus Tydeus. The number of genitals is however 5 (vs 6 in Tydeus). Pertydeus thus re-established in its pristine state and restored as a subgenus of Tydeus (rest. comb.).	en	André K, Henri M. (2025): Sixty years after “ A review of the genera of the family Tydeidae ” (Acariformes: Tydeoidea: Tydeidae). Acarologia 65 (1): 149-172, DOI: 10.24349/l5vb-767l, URL: https://doi.org/10.24349/l5vb-767l
A96F4B7CE96FFFF7FE7EFBACFD71F95D.taxon	discussion	is considered to be a subgenus of Brachytydeus characterized by the same leg phanerotaxy but with only 4 genitals (new comb.).	en	André K, Henri M. (2025): Sixty years after “ A review of the genera of the family Tydeidae ” (Acariformes: Tydeoidea: Tydeidae). Acarologia 65 (1): 149-172, DOI: 10.24349/l5vb-767l, URL: https://doi.org/10.24349/l5vb-767l
A96F4B7CE96FFFF7FE7EFBACFD71F95D.taxon	discussion	is considered to be a subgenus of Brachytydeus characterized by the same leg phanerotaxy but with only 2 genitals as in the original description (new comb.).	en	André K, Henri M. (2025): Sixty years after “ A review of the genera of the family Tydeidae ” (Acariformes: Tydeoidea: Tydeidae). Acarologia 65 (1): 149-172, DOI: 10.24349/l5vb-767l, URL: https://doi.org/10.24349/l5vb-767l
A96F4B7CE96FFFF7FE7EFBACFD71F95D.taxon	discussion	the binomen used by André (1984), does not respect the gender agreement. The original combination corrected under art. 34.2 of ICZN is Homeotydeus formosus which is the type species of the genus Neohomeotydeus.	en	André K, Henri M. (2025): Sixty years after “ A review of the genera of the family Tydeidae ” (Acariformes: Tydeoidea: Tydeidae). Acarologia 65 (1): 149-172, DOI: 10.24349/l5vb-767l, URL: https://doi.org/10.24349/l5vb-767l
