Pterygosoma aegyptiaca Mostfa, 1974

Fajfer, Monika, 2020, A systematic revision of the scale mite genus Pterygosoma Peters, 1849 (Acariformes: Pterygosomatidae), Zootaxa 4805 (1), pp. 1-147 : 96

Pterygosoma aegyptiaca Mostfa, 1974

Pterygosoma aegyptiaca Mostafa, 1974: 96 , figs 1−9; Baker 2017: 1974, figs 1−27

Type host: Uromastyx sp. (Sauria: Agamidae ). Type locality: Egypt (Wadi Abu Shih).

Diagnosis. FEMALE (based on redescription made by Baker 2017). Gnathosoma . Slender cheliceral part longer than swollen cheliceral part. Fixed cheliceral digit spinous, with long tine. Setae dF longer than setae dG. Palpal tibia with 3 smooth setae and slender claw. Palpal tarsi with 5 setae and small solenidion. Subcapitulum with filiform setae n. Hypostome with slightly flattened apex. Idiosoma 760–1080 wide and 400–520 long. Dorsum with 2 pairs of filiform setae situated anteriorly on weakly sclerotized propodonotal shield; about 17 pairs of serrate setae situated sublaterally, 2 pairs of of filiform setae dm1 and dm2 situated medially and 9–12 pairs of serrate, apically expanded peripheral setae situated posteriorly. Eyes present. Venter. Setae vm1 filiform, setae vm2 and vm3 paddleshaped and serrate. Genital series represented by 4 pairs of filiform setae g1–g4. Pseudanal series represented by 5–6 pairs of spatulate setae ps1−ps6. Legs chaetotaxy given in Table 1. All setae on each podomere filiform, except for serrate setae: dFI–IV, vGII–III, dTiII–III, l’TiIII–IV and l”TiIII−IV. Setation of tarsi I as in group A ( Tab. 2). Setae vs’, vs” of legs I serrate, setae a’, a”, u’, u” of legs I smooth.

MALE. Unknown.

Type material (not examined). Female holotype and 1 female paratype from Uromastyx sp., (Sauria: Agamidae ), EGYPT: Red Sea Governorate, Wadi Abu Shihat, 9 May 1967.

Type material deposition. Type material deposited in the RML is lost (personal communication with RML Information Center) .

Host and distribution. This species was recorded only from Uromastyx sp. from Egypt [Red Sea Governorate, Wadi Abu Shih] (Mostafa 1974).

Remarks. This species was originally described by Mostafa (1974a). Since then, no record of the species was made until Baker (2017) thorourghly re-described the species and pointed out 10 discrepancies in the morphological description of the species (compare Figs. 1 and 2 of Mostafa 1974 with Figs. 1 and 2 of Baker 2017). Baker (2017) also speculates that this species might by found in the future on various Uromastyx spp. in different localities. Unfortunately, no specimens of P. aegyptiaca were taken from Uromastyx species after examining more than 60 species from the type locality (only specimens of Pterygosoma sinaita Jack, 1961 were found on Uromastyx ornata Heyden , present studies). Moreover, the examination of the remaining species of Pterygosoma shows that the mites are highly host-specific (62 % are monoxenous parasites, see Fajfer 2019) thus the discrepancies found in morphological descriptions of the species (see Mostafa 1974a vs. Baker 2017) awaits future studies because they might be different species. Furthermore, in the redescription made by Baker (2017) setae ft” of tarsi I should be regarded as ft’ and ft” of tarsi II−IV as setae tc’.

It is worth mentioning that the arrangement of setae tc (tc’ and tc”) on tarsi I differs from other Pterygosoma species. In P. aegyptiaca , setae tc are situated between setae p and setae it whereas in the remaining species from the genus, except for P. caucasica , setae tc are situated between solenidion ω1 and the proral setae (p’, p”).

Figures

FIGURE 1. Pterygosoma mutabilis Jack, 1961, female. A, dorsal view; B, palps in dorsal view.

FIGURE 2. Pterygosoma mutabilis Jack, 1961, female. A, ventral view; B, tarsus I in dorsal view; C, tarsus II in dorso-lateral view.