Diptilostatus mesae, Flechtmann, Carlos H. W., 2004
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.158438 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:04137FE6-0AE1-490E-9725-1157513303F5 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6272995 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/42698F8F-F54D-4803-8404-3CD81F7FFFEC |
taxon LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:act:42698F8F-F54D-4803-8404-3CD81F7FFFEC |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Diptilostatus mesae |
status |
sp. nov. |
Diptilostatus mesae n.sp. ( Fig. 8 View FIGURE 8 )
DIAGNOSIS — Prodorsal shield design typical ( Fig. 8 View FIGURE 8 D); epigynum with a transverse line forming an obtuse angle, separating ornamentations in two distinct ranks.
FEMALE (n = 7) — Body spindleshaped, whitish when alive, 156 (143–183), 75 (70–77) wide. Gnathosoma projecting down; basal seta 4 (4–5); antapical seta absent in 20 specimens examined; chelicera 46 (42–47). Prodorsal shield 35 (30–35), 63 (53–68) wide; shield tubercles reduced, but present, 21 (19–24) apart; scapular seta (sc) missing. Shield design of a faint median line on posterior half, admedian and submedian lines joined by a posterior transverse, arched line and antero lateral lines as figured. A narrow frontal lobe, 2(2), 25 (25–27) wide. Legs with usual leg segments; tibia I, genu II and femora I and II setae missing. Leg I 33 (32–34); femur 13 (12–14), femoral seta (bv) missing; genu 5 (4–5), genual seta (l") 42 (41–44), on a robust tubercle; tibia 3 (3–4), tibial seta (l') missing; tarsus 11 (8–11), dorsal seta (ft') 34 (28–35), lateral seta (ft") 37 (33–38), unguinal seta (u') 5 (4–6), solenidion 5 (5–6), strongly knobbed, empodium divided, each branch 5rayed. Leg II 24 (24–27); femur 9 (9–11), bv missing; genu 4 (3–4), l” missing; tibia 4(4); tarsus 7 (7–8), ft’ 8 (8–10), ft” 25 (25), u’ 7 (5–7), solenidion 7 (7–6), empodium 8 (8–9), 5rayed. Coxigenital area: coxae I with a few paraxial granules, otherwise coxae smooth. Coxae I apparently separated mesally for an extension of 13 (12–17). Coxal seta I (1b) 7 (7–9), 11 (9–11) apart; coxal seta II (1a) 21 (18–23), 8 (6–8) apart; coxal seta III (2a) 44 (40–48), 25 (21–15) apart. Coxigenital area with 7 (6–7) annuli, microtuberculate, and a few scattered granuli anteromedially. Genitalia 40 (37–41) wide, 26 (25–31) long; genital seta (3a) 7 (7–10). Epigynum with a transverse line forming an obtuse angle; distally to this line with 22 (20–24) longitudinal lines and basally with many longitudinal dashes or very short lines. Opisthosoma with a slight mediodorsal ridge extending over ca. half of opisthosoma length. Lateral seta (c2) 23 (20–23), laterad of mid genitalia. Ventral seta I (d) 60 (58–61), extending way past bases of second ventral seta, 35 (31–37) apart, on annulus 10 (10–14) from rear margin of genitalia; ventral seta II (e) 51 (40–53), 20 (17–21) apart, on annulus 29 (29–33); ventral seta III (f) 18 (18–22), 18 (18–19) apart, on annulus 47 (46–54) or 8 (8)th from rear. Total ventral annuli 55 (53–61), microtuberculate; total dorsal annuli 71 (66–75), more sparsely microtuberculate. Caudal seta (h2) 63 (63–72); accessory seta (h1) minute.
MALE — Not seen.
RELATION TO HOST PLANT — The mites appear as white wax stripes on the lower leaf surface. No visible damage.
TYPE MATERIAL — Holotype female, 20 female paratypes, from Clidemia hirta (L.) D. Don. ( Melastomataceae ), Pariqueraaçu, São Paulo, Brazil (24° 36' 51" S, 47° 53' 22" W), July 2002, coll. Nora Cristina Mesa , on 6 microscopic preparations.
ETYMOLOGY — This species is named for Mrs. Nora Cristina Mesa, Colombian Acarologist and graduate student who collected and submitted several Brazilian eriophyid infested plants.
REMARKS — The three species in the genus Diptilostatus , D. nudipalpus Flechtmann, 2003 (in Flechtmann & Moraes, 2003), and the two new species herein described share the long opisthosomal ventral setae d and e (extending well beyond the bases of subsequent seta), the subequal leg I tarsal dorsal and lateral setae, the absence of the palpal antapical seta and the epigynial scorings in two ranks. They differ in size and prodorsal shield design. In the type species and D. lofegoi n.sp. the epigynial shield scorings, basal dashes and distal lines, are rather similar; in D. mesae n.sp. an arched, transverse line is also present, separating the two ranks of scorings.
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |