Hydrachna conjecta Koenike, 1895,

Davids, Kees, Sabatino, Antonio Di, Gerecke, Reinhard, Gledhill, Terence & Smit, Harry, 2005, On the taxonomy of water mites (Acari: Hydrachnidia) described from the Palaearctic, part 1: Hydrachnidae, Limnocharidae and Eylaidae, Zootaxa 1061, pp. 36-64: 39

publication ID

http://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.170186

publication LSID

lsid:zoobank.org:pub:81B2332D-7AEB-406F-B2FC-6C2A36934B52

persistent identifier

http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F7DE69-B04F-FFEF-FEF6-F9A7FB2E818B

treatment provided by

Plazi

scientific name

Hydrachna conjecta Koenike, 1895
status

 

Hydrachna conjecta Koenike, 1895 

Material examined: " Hydrachna distincta  " NHUB female "Ostfriesland, Sandwater bei Simoniswalde, 22.7. 1910 Leege" (err., non H. distincta Koenike  ); NHML female "Lincolnshire, Dr. C.F. George Coll. [slide] 1926 ­VI­ 24. 160 Balsam: 1898 " (err., non H. distincta Koenike  ).

Discussion: The specimen from the collection of Koenike is desiccated and mounted with the gnathosoma in situ, but there is sufficient evidence that it agrees well with H. conjecta  . An area posterior to the genital field bears very distinct papillae that could have been confused with acetabula, suggesting the presence of an elongated genital field as is characteristic for H. distincta  . The Lincolnshire specimen is mounted with the gnathosoma in situ. Probably it was attributed to H. distincta  due to the equally rounded medial margin of the frontal sclerites, a character which is found to be variable when larger numbers of H. conjecta  are studied. In view of the enlarged genital field, the attribution of both specimens to H. distincta  is surely erroneous, they belong to H. conjecta  (see below).

NHML

Natural History Museum, Tripoli