Drymobatoides Jacot, 1936

Ermilov, S. G. & Corpuz-Raros, L., 2017, New data on the Philippine oribatid mite fauna, with a contribution to knowledge of the genus Drymobatoides (Acari, Oribatida, Mochlozetidae), Acarologia 57 (2), pp. 295-308 : 299-300

Genus Drymobatoides Jacot, 1936

Type species: Drymobatoides mauritius Jacot, 1936, p. 397

Adult — Mochlozetidae ( Grandjean 1960; Norton and Behan-Pelletier 2009). Large mites, length: 737 – 1330. Integument without ornamentation. Rostrum rounded. Lamella well-developed, cusp absent or present, minute, truncate or with lateral tooth. Translamella absent. Sublamella present. Prolamella absent. Tutorium linear. Rostral, lamellar, interlamellar and bothridial setae long (but lengths of ro, le and in are unknown (broken) in Drymobatoides insignis ( Balogh, 1962)) , setiform, barbed or unilaterally ciliate, rarely smooth, ro distanced from end of tutorium. Pedotecta I and II represented by small lamina. Porose areas Al, Am and Ah present, Ad absent. Anterior margin of notogaster complete medially, posterior margin rounded. Pteromorph well-developed, immovable (see Remarks section below). Dorsophragma and pleurophragma present. Notogaster with numerous (about 20-50 pairs) small, rounded porose areas. Ten pairs of notogastral setae represented only by alveoli. Axillary saccule on subcapitulum absent. Subcapitular setae long, setiform. Discidium and circumpedal carina present, custodium usually present. Typical epimeral setal formula: 3-1-3-3[2]. Four, five or six pairs of genital, one pair of aggenital, two pairs of anal and three pairs of adanal setae, ad 1 in postanal position. Adanal lyrifissure located close to anal plate, paraanal. Marginoventral porose area band present. Porose area on leg femora and trochanters III and IV well visible, and absent from postero-ventral part of leg tarsi and antero-ventral part of leg tibiae. Tarsus I with 20 setae (including l’" and v’). Sexual dimorphism absent.

Juvenile instars — Unknown.

Remarks — Based on data from Mahunka (1994), Seychellozetes benoiti Mahunka, 1984 has movable pteromorph. We could not study the type material of this species, but in Mahunka’s original figure (Fig. 17, p. 675), the supposed hinge follows the line of the ventral plate exactly, and we considerbelieve that he confused the lines and was wrong in the observation. This has happened before. For example (pers. com. from Prof. Dr. Roy A. Norton), the mochlozetid genus Uracrobates Balogh and Mahunka, 1967 was originally described as having movable pteromorph and was included in Haplozetidae by Balogh and Mahunka (1967). It became clear that they had made an error in observation, regarding the pteromorph. Mahunka (1988) reillustrated the type species ( Uracrobates magniporosus Balogh and Mahunka, 1967 ), showing clearly the absence of a ’hinge’; he did not specifically state that the pteromorph was immovable, but it is implied. And in Balogh and Balogh 2002 (part 1, p. 300-301) the type species is clearly keyed in a group that is characterized by immovable pteromorph. So, in the case of Uracrobates both original authors indirectly tell us that there was an original error, even if that word was not used. We suspect that the same is true of S. benoiti .