Neopicobia, Skoracki., 2011

Skoracki, Maciej, Sikora, Bozena & Spicer, Greg S., 2016, A review of the subfamily Picobiinae Johnston and Kethley, 1973 (Acariformes: Prostigmata: Syringophilidae), Zootaxa 4113 (1), pp. 1-95 : 38-39

publication ID

https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.4113.1.1

publication LSID

lsid:zoobank.org:pub:8B8CDC5A-304F-407F-A06F-F350F916DCD1

DOI

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4624074

persistent identifier

https://treatment.plazi.org/id/58448787-A53D-3F12-8EF3-F953FA785CC1

treatment provided by

Plazi

scientific name

Neopicobia
status

 

Key to species of the genus Neopicobia View in CoL

(Females)

1. Hysteronotal shields well developed, bearing bases of setae d1 and e2. Agenital and genital plates present … / freya View in CoL species group /............................................................................................. 2

- Hysteronotal shields reduced to small rings surrounded bases of setae d1 or absent. Agenital and genital plates absent … / anthi View in CoL species group /........................................................................................ 4

2. Pygidial shield with well developed wing-like lobes. Setae 4c situated out of coxal fields IV.............................................................................................. N. hepburni Glowska and Laniecka, 2014 View in CoL

- Pygidial shield without wing-like lobes. Setae 4c situated on coxal fields IV...................................... 3

3. Length ratios of setae vi: ve: si 1:1.8:2–2.2, f1: f2 1:4.5–5.5 times. Agenital plates fused to genital plate. In males, setae d2 are about 3.5–4 times longer than e2 .............................................. N. ea Skoracki and Unsoeld, 2014

- Length ratios of setae vi: ve: si 1:1.3–1.5:1.5–1.7, f1: f2 1:11. Agenital plates not fused to genital plate. In males, setae d2 are 9 times longer than e2...................................................... N. freya Skoracki and Unsoeld, 2014 View in CoL

4. Setae f1 situated out of pygidial shield.......................... N. troglodytes ( Skoracki, Hendricks and Spicer, 2010) View in CoL

- Setae f1 situated on pygidial shield....................................................................... 5

5. Hysteronotal shield as small punctate rings surrounded bases of setae d1 ..................................................................................................... N. cardinalis ( Skoracki, Hendricks and Spicer, 2010) View in CoL

- Hysteronotal shields absent............................................................................. 6

6. Setae ag1 and ag3 no more than twice longer than ag2 ....................................................... 7

- Setae ag1 and ag3 4–5 times longer than ag2............................ N. modularis ( Skoracki and Magowski, 2001) View in CoL

7. Setae ag1 and ag3 twice longer than ag2 .................................................................. 8

- Setae ag1 and ag3 1.4–1.6 times longer than ag2 ............................................................. 9

8. Coxal fields III and IV densely punctate. Pygidial shield punctate... N. carpodacus ( Skoracki, Hendricks and Spicer, 2010) View in CoL

- Coxal fields III and IV apunctate. Pygidial shield apunctate.................................. N. anthi ( Fritsch, 1958) View in CoL

9. Coxal fields I and II apunctate. Length of setae si, c1, d1 and e2 70 –75, 105, 80–95 and 85–100, respectively...................................................................................................... N. pari View in CoL sp. nov.

- Coxal fields I and II punctate. Length of setae si, c1, d1 and e2 165–175, 180–190, 165–170 and 155–170, respectively.............................................................. N. ictericus ( Skoracki and Glowska, 2010) View in CoL comb. nov.

GBIF Dataset (for parent article) Darwin Core Archive (for parent article) View in SIBiLS Plain XML RDF