Dinocheirus transcaspius ( Redikorzev, 1922 )
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.3906/zoo-1801-47 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03986A17-7025-7951-FCFB-FBF32CA4FEF7 |
treatment provided by |
Felipe |
scientific name |
Dinocheirus transcaspius ( Redikorzev, 1922 ) |
status |
|
Dinocheirus transcaspius ( Redikorzev, 1922) View in CoL ( Figures 2 View Figure 2 and 3 View Figure 3 )
8: Moscow, Tereletskiy Park Forest , 25 June 2009, 1 female, nest of T. pilaris View in CoL .
Remarks: First record for Russia. The species has previously been reported from Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan ( Harvey, 2013). Dinocheirus transcaspius has been found in caves and mammal nests ( Schawaller, 1986).
The species belongs to the genus Dinocheirus based on the shape of spermatheca and presence of pseudotactile setae on tarsus IV ( Schawaller, 1986). As did Muchmore (1972), Schawaller (1986) suggested the revision of the genus because of the absence versus presence of tactile setae on tergite XI. That is why the main diagnostic characters of both recorded species of the genus are presented ( Figures 2 View Figure 2 and 3 View Figure 3 ).
Allochernes wideri (C.L. Koch, 1843)
4: Moscow, urban area, 16 July 2010, 1 female, nest of T. pilaris .
Remarks: The species occurs in a wide range within the Palearctic region ( Harvey, 2013). It has been previously found in only a few localities in Russia, in the nest of Parus major (Linnaeus, 1758) and phoretic on true fly Tephrochlamys flavipes (Zetterstedt, 1838) ( Schawaller, 1989) . Most recently Kozminykh (2017) reported the
KRAJČOVIČOVÁ et al. / Turk J Zool species from the Urals. The current finding represents the fourth record for Russia.
Pselaphochernes scorpioides (Hermann, 1804) 6: Moscow, Kuskovo Park , July 2008, 6 males, 8 females, 4 tritonymphs, 13 deutonymphs, 11 protonymphs, nest of P. montanus .
Remarks: The species occurs within the Palearctic realm with a distribution center in Europe ( Harvey, 2013). In Russia, the species is known only from a few localities ( Redikorzev, 1924; Schawaller, 1989, 1994). Schawaller (1989) reported a single species record from a Microtus nest. All other known data from Russia are missing habitat specifications.
To date, 86 different pseudoscorpion species are known to be associated with birds, occurring in their nests, among guano, or on the birds themselves ( Turienzo et al., 2010; Harvey et al., 2015; Krajčovičová et al., 2015). From Russia, only scarce records have been reported until now: Cheiridium museorum (Leach, 1817) in the nest of H. rustica and A. wideri in the nest of Parus major (Linnaeus, 1758) (Schawaller, 1985, 1989). In the current study, a single A. wideri specimen was present in a T. pilaris nest, while C. museorum was not present in the studied bird nests.
According to the study of Christophoryová et al. (2011a), C. cancroides , D. panzeri , C. hahnii , and A. wideri are pseudoscorpions that occur regularly in bird nests, including their nymphal stages or females with brood sacks. In the present study, the mentioned species, except A. wideri , were collected together with their nymphal stages. Females of D. panzeri were present with brood sacks. The close association of C. cancroides with synanthropic habitats is well known ( Turienzo et al., 2010; Christophoryová et al., 2011a). Our obtained results correspond with this as the majority of C. cancroides specimens were found in H. rustica and D. urbica nests situated in anthropogenic zones. Both C. hahnii and D. panzeri were present in nests of five different bird taxa. According to Christophoryová et al. (2011a), these two species can be found in open nests and in nests in tree cavities, thus explaining their presence in so many different bird nests. On the other hand, the occurrence of C. vicinus in bird nests is known only scarcely ( Krumpál and Cyprich, 1988; Krajčovičová et al., 2015). The current findings in S. vulgaris and F. coelebs nests confirmed our knowledge about the habitat range and distribution of the species. Similarly, new information is obtained for the quite rare D. transcaspius , as the current finding is the northernmost known and represents the first record in bird nest for the species.
One tritonymph of D. balcanicus was found attached in plumage of R. ridibundus during the present study. Data about phoresy on vertebrates are not as common as on invertebrates, butthisphenomenonisnotentirelyunknown ( Beier, 1948; Poinar et al., 1998; Turienzo et al., 2010). Henderickx (1998) assumed that it is likely that association with mammals gives pseudoscorpions opportunities for phoretic dispersion. In fact, phoretic occurrence in the pelage is quite common in cases of the species associated with mammals ( Beier, 1948; Durden, 1991). Harvey et al. (2015) published a comprehensive review about pseudoscorpion observations from bird plumage with the discovery of a new cheliferid pseudoscorpion, Sociochelifer metoecus , found in Philetairus socius (Latham, 1790) plumage. A single record has been recorded from Russia, as well: Apocheiridium rossicum was recorded on the head of a wild duck from Siberia and on an unidentified bird from Perm ( Redikorzev, 1935).
According to Harvey (2013) and Kozminykh (2017), the Russian pseudoscorpion fauna includes 40 species from eight families. After reviewing the published data, several missing data in the work by Harvey (2013) and contradiction in that of Kozminykh (2017) were noticed. Therefore, the elaboration of an updated annotated checklist from Russia and Crimea based on revised material is recommended. Taking into account the latest checklist of pseudoscorpions of Russia ( Harvey, 2013) and the work of Kozminykh (2017), supplemented by newly recorded Diplotemnus balcanicus , Chernes vicinus , Dinocheirus panzeri , and Dinocheirus transcaspius , the number of Russian pseudoscorpions has increased by four new species.
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 |
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |