Eulohmanniidae, Grandjean, 1931

Norton K, Roy A. & ErmilovK, Sergey G., 2022, Paedomorphosis and sexuality in Eulohmanniidae (Acari, Oribatida): surprising diversity in a relictual family of oribatid mites, Acarologia 62 (4), pp. 989-1069 : 1045-1046

Relationships of Eulohmanniidae

Historical overview of classification

The earliest family-group classification of Eulohmannia was that of Berlese (1913), who considered it one of six genera of the tribe Michaeliini in a very broad concept of the family Nothridae . This was soon adjusted ( Berlese 1916b) by including it as one of five genera in Lohmannini [sic], the latter being one of two tribes of his newly proposed Malaconothridae . Sellnick (1928) maintained this classification, but under the elevated family taxon Lohmanniidae . Grandjean (1931) recognized the heterogeneity of Berlese’s taxon and proposed the family Eulohmanniidae , which has remained monogeneric except in the classification of Baker and

Wharton (1952). These latter authors tentatively included Collohmannia and Perlohmannia ,

transfers that have been ignored by other authors.

Grandjean (1931) considered Eulohmanniidae to have closest affinity with Nanhermanniidae , which have a ventral plate organization that in some ways is similar (see R4). Willmann

(1931), who separately proposed Eulohmanniidae several months later ( Hammen 1959), gave a name to this pair of families: the subcohort Diagastres, within the large cohort Aptyctima that included the bulk of oribatid mites. Willmann clearly stated this was a pragmatic grouping,

and he doubted this pairing comprised a ‘systematic unit’ but his classification was maintained in synoptic literature into the 1950s (e.g., Vitzthum 1943 ; Radford 1950 ; Baker and Wharton

1952).

In his iconic essay on oribatid mite classification, Grandjean (1954a) considered Eulohmanniidae to be one of 11 ‘natural groups’, thereby abandoning Willmann’s system; he proposed no enveloping higher classification, but two views soon arose. The previously supposed relationship with Nanhermanniidae was recognized formally by Baker et al. (1958) and Woolley and Baker (1958), who included Eulohmanniidae in the newly recognized Nanhermannioidea,

along with Nanhermanniidae and Epilohmanniidae . We know of no other authors who used this classification. The same year, Grandjean (1958a) proposed ‘Perlohmannoidea’ (properly

Perlohmannioidea Grandjean, 1954a) to include Eulohmanniidae and three other single-family natural groups that he considered relictual: Perlohmanniidae , Epilohmanniidae and Lohmanniidae . This latter superfamily classification was used—with the addition of Collohmanniidae ,

about which Grandjean (1958a) was equivocal—in an influential series of papers by Balogh

(e.g., 1961, 1965) and by Bulanova-Zachvatkina (1967). Subsequently, Grandjean (1969)

demoted Perlohmannioidea by essentially reverting to his 1954a opinion about the isolated,

relictual nature of the four families. He elevated each to a monofamilial superfamily and did the same with Collohmanniidae . To these he added the speciose Ptyctima (his Euptyctima:

Phthiracaroidea and Euphthiracaroidea) and proposed the unranked taxon Mixonomata for the seven superfamilies.

Grandjean’s classification of Eulohmannia in the monobasic Eulohmanniidae and redundant

Eulohmannioidea has remained in general use, though the acceptance and composition of

Mixonomata has varied. Mixonomata was ignored in some important works (e.g., Balogh

1972, Ghilarov and Krivolutsky 1975) but retained mostly in its original sense—adding

Nehypochthoniioidea as suggested by Norton and Metz (1980) —in others (e.g., Fujikawa

1991; Balogh and Balogh 1992). Under the name Mesomixosomatae, Lee (1984, 1985 ; ranked respectively as a subcohort or section) recognized Grandjean’s (1969) original concept of

Mixonomata except for the removal of Lohmannioidea (see also Norton 2010). A concept of Mixonomata that included Nehypochthonioidea and excluded Lohmannioidea was ranked as an infraorder by Schatz et al. ((2011) and earlier as a supercohort by Norton and BehanPelletier (2009); the latter authors used the variant name Mixonomatides to be consistent with the overall mite classification ( Krantz and Walter 2009). None of these works altered the redundant classification of Eulohmanniidae in Eulohmannioidea or proposed groupings that linked Eulohmanniidae to other mixonomatans.

Phylogenetic relationships