Protolichus

Mironov, Sergey V. & Dabert, Jacek, 2010, Systematic revision of the feather mite genus Protolichus Trouessart, 1884 (Astigmata, Pterolichidae), Zootaxa 2526, pp. 1-36 : 6

Key to Protolichus species

1 In females, setae e2 flattened and slightly widened, saber-shaped ( Fig. 2 A). In all forms of males, dorsal surface of opisthosomal lobes posterior to bases of setae h3 without any transverse crest or ledge ( Figs 5 , 9 A, 15A, B). In heteromorph males (ones with large crest-like ventral extension on tarsus I), opisthosomal lobes acute ( brachiatus group) .......................................................................................................................................................................... 2

- In females, setae e2 setiform ( Fig. 12 B). In all forms of males, opisthosomal lobes with transverse crest partly or completely crossing lobes posterior to base of setae h3 ( Figs. 15 C, D, 17G, H). In heteromorph males, posterior margin of opisthosomal lobes obliquely cut or truncate ( crassior group) .......................................................................... 5

2 In all form of males, setae e2 reaching or slightly extending beyond lobar apices; setae d and e of tarsus IV differently shaped: seta d spiculiform with clear basal ring, seta e modified into poorly sclerotized spine-like process without distinct basal ring ( Fig. 8 E). In heteromorph males, tarsus II with large rectangular extension on ventral margin, genu II with acute dorsal crest ( Figs 8 C, D). In females, setae si spiculiform (35–45 long), approximately equal in length to distance between their bases, setae ps1 shorter than half of idiosoma’s greatest width ( Fig. 11 B)................. ..................................................................................................................... P. magnificus Favette et Trouessart, 1904

- In all forms of males, setae e2 extending far beyond lobar apices by at least half their length; seta d and e of tarsus IV similar in structure, represented by spicules with distinct basal ring, or poorly sclerotized cones with basal inflation ( Figs 3 E, 6D). In heteromorph males, tarsus II without rectangular extension on ventral margin, genu II with rounded dorsal crest ( Figs 10 C, D) or without it ( Fig 3 C). In females, setae si setiform, much shorter than distance between their bases, setae ps1 longer than a half of idiosoma’s greatest width ( Figs 11 A, 12A, B) ........................... 3

3 In heteromorph male, genu II with rectangular antero-dorsal extension bearing solenidion σ 1 ( Figs 9 B, 10C, D), terminal cleft wide, about 1.5 times longer than width. In females, setae e1 posterior to level of cupules im ( Fig. 12 A). ........................................................................................................................................................ P. sigillator sp. n. 1*

- In heteromorph male, genu II without any dorsal extension or with crest of another form; terminal cleft narrow, over 2 times longer than wide. In females, setae e1 at level of cupules im or anterior to it ............................................... 4

4 In all forms of males, setae e2 with filiform apical part, hysteronotal shield without any ornamentation, setae d, e of tarsus IV represented by spicules with distinct basal ring ( Fig. 3 E). In heteromorph male, ventral crest of tarsus I with almost rectangular proximal part ( Figs 3 A, B), subcapitulum crossed by strong bow-shaped fold and several fine transverse striae, posterior margin of subcapitulum slightly convex ( Fig. 3 F). In homeomorph male, width of terminal cleft over 10. In females, posterior end of hysteronotal shield uniformly punctate ( Fig. 2 A) ......................... ..................................................................................................................................... P. brachiatus Trouessart, 1884

- In all forms of males, setae e2 thick all the way to their tips, not filiform; posterior end of hysteronotal shield, usually at level of setae e2 with numerous poorly pronounced pits ( Figs 5 C, D); setae d, e of tarsus IV as poorly sclerotized cones with basal inflation ( Fig. 6 D). In heteromorph males, ventral crest of tarsus I with rounded proximal part ( Fig. 6 B), subcapitulum crossed by a single almost straight transverse wrinkle, posterior margin of subcapitulum strongly convex ( Fig. 6 G). In homeomorph males, width of terminal cleft about 5. In females, posterior end of hysteronotal shield with several pit-like lacunae ( Fig. 11 A) .......................... P. strangulatus Favette et Trouessart, 1904

5 In heteromorph male, tibia II with large claw-shaped apophysis on antaxial surface and with wide longitudinal dorsal crest; seta cG of genu II wide blade-like, strongly curved at base and directed parallel to segment ( Figs. 18 A, B). In homeomorph male, seta cG II narrowly lanceolate, not longer than segment ( Fig. 18 D). In females, length of scapular setae si (45–50) approximately equal to distance between their bases........... P. c a s u a r i n u s Trouessart, 1884

- In heteromorph male, tibia II with short tubercle-like ventral apophysis; seta cG of genu II setiform in general shape although strongly thickened especially in basal part ( Figs 14 C, D, 20C, D). In homeomorph male, seta cG II setiform, 1.5–2 times longer than segment. In female, length of scapular setae si (30–35) about 3/4 of distance between their bases..................................................................................................................................................................... 6

6 In heteromorph males, femur II without apico-dorsal apophyses, ventral apophysis of tibia II finely verrucous or smooth, setae cG II with almost filiform apex, smooth ( Figs 14 C, D), subcapitulum with bow-shaped transverse fold ( Fig. 14 F). In both forms of males, greatest width of terminal cleft equal or less than half-width of opisthosomal lobe. In females, width of terminal cleft (distance between setae ps1) about 32–38, posterior end of hysteronotal shield with pit-like lacunae ( Fig. 12 B) ............................................................................. P. c r a s s i o r Trouessart, 1884

- In heteromorph males, femur II with two dorso-apical spine-like apophyses, ventral apophysis of tibia II roughly verrucous; setae cG II thick, with verrucae in apical part ( Figs 20 C, D), subcapitulum with a pair of oblique crests in posterior angles ( Fig. 20 F). In both forms of males, greatest width of terminal cleft not less than width of opisthosomal lobe. In females, width of terminal cleft (distance between setae ps1) less than 30, posterior end of hysteronotal shield without pit-like lacunae ...................................................................... P. gratus Favette et Trouessart, 1904

1. Homeomorph male is unknown for this species.

Figures

FIGURE 2. Protolichus brachiatus, female. A—dorsal view, B—ventral view.

FIGURE 3. Protolichus brachiatus, heteromorph male. A—leg I, dorsal view, B—tarsus I, ventral view, C—leg II, dorsal view, D—leg III, dorsal view, E—leg IV, dorsal view, F—gnathosoma, ventral view.

FIGURE 5. Dorsal view of male opisthosoma of Protolichus brachiatus (A, B) and P. strangulatus (C, D). A, Cheteromorph male, B, D—homeomorph male.

FIGURE 6. Protolichus strangulatus, male. A—ventral view of heteromorph male, B—leg I of heteromorph male, dorsal view, C—leg II of heteromorph male, dorsal view, D—tarsus IV of heteromorph male, dorsal view, E—leg I of homeomorph male, dorsal view, F—leg II of homeomorph male, G—gnathosoma of heteromorph male, ventral view, H—gnathosoma of homeomorph male, dorsal view, ventral view.

FIGURE 8. Protolichus magnificus, male. A—leg I of heteromorph male, dorsal view, B—tarsus I of heteromorph male, ventral view, C—leg II of heteromorph male, dorsal view, D—genu, tibia and tarsus of leg I in heteromorph male, ventral view, E—tibia and tarsus IV of heteromorph male, dorsal view, F—gnathosoma of heteromorph male, ventral view, Gleg I of homeomorph male, dorsal view, H—leg II of homeomorph male, dorsal view, I—gnathosoma of homeomorph male, ventral view.

FIGURE 9. Protolichus sigillator, heteromorph male. A—dorsal view, B—ventral view.

FIGURE 10. Protolichus sigillator, details of heteromorph male. A—leg I, dorsal view, B—genu, tibia and tarsus of leg I, ventral view, C—leg II, dorsal view, D - genu, tibia and tarsus of leg II, ventral view, E—tarsus IV, dorsal view, Ftarsus IV, ventral view, G—gnathosoma, dorsal view, H—gnathosoma, ventral view.

FIGURE 11. Protolichus females, dorsal view. A— Protolichus strangulatus, B— P. magnificus.

FIGURE 12. Protolichus females, dorsal view. A— Protolichus sigillator, B— P. crassior.

FIGURE 14. Protolichus crassior, details of males. A—leg I of heteromorph male, dorsal view, B—leg I of heteromorph male, ventral view, C—leg II of heteromorph male, dorsal view, D—leg II of heteromorph male, ventral view, E—tibia and tarsus IV of heteromorph male, dorsal view, F—gnathosoma of heteromorph male, ventral view, Gleg I of homeomorph male, dorsal view, H—leg II of homeomorph male, dorsal view, I—gnathosoma of homeomorph male, ventral view.

FIGURE 15. Dorsal view of male opisthosoma of Protolichus magnificus (A, B) and P. crassior (C, D). A, Cheteromorph male, B, D—homeomorph male.

FIGURE 18. Legs of male Protolichus casuarinus. A—leg II of heteromorph male, dorsal view, B—leg II of heteromorph male, ventral view, C—leg I of homeomorph male, dorsal view, D—leg II of homeomorph male, dorsal view.

FIGURE 20. Protolichus gratus, details of heteromorph male. A—leg I, dorsal view, B—leg I, ventral view, C—leg II, dorsal view, D—leg II, ventral view, E—tarsus IV, dorsal view, F—gnathosoma, ventral view, G—opisthosoma, dorsal view.