Haemogamasus nidiformes Bregetova, 1955

Vinarski, Maxim V. & Korallo-Vinarskaya, Natalia P., 2017, An annotated catalogue of the gamasid mites associated with small mammals in Asiatic Russia. The family Haemogamasidae (Acari: Mesostigmata: Gamasina), Zootaxa 4273 (1), pp. 1-18 : 11

Haemogamasus nidiformes Bregetova , 195 5

Haemogamasus nidiformes .— Bregetova, 1955: 285, figs 561–564; Bregetova, 1956a: 136, 155, figs 272–275, 343; Bregetova, 1956b: 1652, fig. 5; Mrciak, 1958: 71; Strandtmann & Wharton, 1958: 134; Allred, 1969: 110; Garrett & Allred, 1971: 294; Zemskaya, 1973: 118; Bregetova, 1977: 570, figs 453 (3), 454 (2, 3); Nikulina, 1987: 224, 225, fig. 116 (4, 18); Senotrusova, 1987: 40, fig. 17; Haitlinger, 1988: 646, figs 18–21; Lundquist, 1990: 332, figs 2, B, 3, B; Goncharova et al., 1991: 48; Mašán & Fend’a, 2010: 103, figs 71, 79, 99–101; Fyodorova & Kharadov, 2012: 276, 277.

Haemogamasus nidi .— Kozlowski, 1960: 409, fig. 1 (partim); Punda, 1972: 83, figs 1–14 (partim).

Type locality. Kyrgyzstan, Tien-Shan Region , upper courses of the Naryn River near the Petrov Glacier ( Bregetova, 1956b).

Syntypes: ZIN. There are 12 females and 2 males in the type series.

Type host. Microtus gregalis .

Host range. Like Hg. nidi , this species is an ecologically opportunistic mite with a very broad range of hosts, both rodents and insectivores. Hg. nidiformes do not exhibit any tendency to exploit a particular taxon of small mammals.

Distribution. The mite is widely distributed throughout the northern and central parts of Eurasia, being recorded from Nepal, Korea, Turkey and other countries of Asia (Prasad, 1972; Kim et al., 1987; Cicek et al., 2008) as well as from different regions of Europe ( Edler & Mehl, 1972; Mašán & Fend’a, 2010). In Asiatic Russia, it occurs almost everywhere, except for Kamchatka and Chukotka Peninsulae and other regions of the extreme north-east of Asia ( Nikulina, 2004).

Remarks. The taxonomic validity of this species was questioned by Kozlowski (1960) and Punda (1972). Punda stated that Hg. nidiformes is a junior synonym of Hg. nidi whose ‘variation range is wide enough to enclose characters of Hg. nidiformes ’ ( Punda, 1972: 83) . Her opinion was denied by Lundquist & Edler (1979), who provided additional morphological details to distinguish between the two phenotypically similar species. All Russian acarologists ( Zemskaya, 1973; Senotrusova, 1987; Goncharova et al., 1991; Nikulina, 2004) accepted Hg. nidiformes as a valid taxon. Kim et al. (1987: 40) re-described this species.

The correct original spelling of the specific name is nidiformes ( Bregetova, 1955, 1956a). Regardless, an alternative and incorrect spelling ( nidiformis ) has occasionally been used ( Edler & Mehl, 1972; Mitchell, 1977; Lundquist & Edler, 1979; Kim et al., 1987). It should be noted that Bregetova herself once also used nidiformis ( Bregetova, 1956b) . For the correct publication date of this name see remarks for Hg. ivanovi above.