Protolichus rubiginosus, Mironov, Sergey V., Ehrnsberger, Rainer & Dabert, Jacek, 2014

Mironov, Sergey V., Ehrnsberger, Rainer & Dabert, Jacek, 2014, New species of the feather mite genus Protolichus Trouessart, 1884 (Astigmata, Pterolichidae) from lories and lorikeets (Aves: Psittaciformes), Zootaxa 3774 (2), pp. 131-151 : 147-150

Protolichus rubiginosus sp. n.

( Figs. 12 , 13 )

Type material. Heteromorph male holotype ( MNHN 34F2) from Trichoglossus rubiginosus (Bonaparte, 1850) , Ile Puynipet, no other data. (Labeled by E. Trouessart as P. brachiatus var. pugilator and subsequently marked by W.T. Atyeo as syntypes of P. casuarinus . See remark below.)

Type depository. Holotype—MNHN.

Description. Heteromorph male (holotype). Idiosoma, length × width, 647 × 342. Subcapitulum nearly rectangular, with posterior margin slightly convex, postero-lateral angles with oblique folds, and central part with transverse fold, bases of setae subc outlined laterally by bow-shaped folds ( Fig. 13 A). Prodorsal shield with posterior margin straight, length 205, surface monotonously punctate except transverse band at level of scapular setae. Setae si spiculiform, 45 long. Distance between scapular setae: se:se 76, si:si 45. Hysterosoma 460 long. Length of hysteronotal shield: 456, greatest width 286, anterior margin straight, surface monotonously punctate. Opisthosomal lobes straight, acute terminally, postero-lateral margin (from base of seta h2 to lobar apex) oblique, dorsal surface of lobes with small transverse crests posterior to bases of setae h3 ( Fig. 12 A). Terminal cleft as a wide inverted U, 80 long, 55 wide at level of setae e1. Setae c2 spiculiform, 45 long; setae d2, most likely filiform (lost in specimen); setae e2 thick, represented by macrosetae without filiform apex, 110 long, extending to level of lobar apices. Setae e1 filiform, situated on median margins of terminal cleft, approximately at level of macrosetae h2. Setae f2 spatuliform, with oblique bidentate apex. Distance between dorsal setae: c2:d2 160, d2:e2 170, e2:h3 90, e2:e2 156, h2:h2 107, h3:h3 97, ps1:ps1 70, e2:h2 62, h2:h3 28, ps1:h3 16. Genital apparatus 30 × 19, its base at level of bases of trochanters IV. Paragenital apodemes with anterior ends free from inner tips of epimerites IIa and IIIa, terminal parts of apodemes connected by transverse bridge ( Fig. 12 B). Distance between ventral setae: 3b:3a 19, 3a:g 33, g:4a 76, 4a:ps3 126. Diameter of anal suckers 24.5.

Legs II approximately 1.5 times longer than legs I. Tarsus I with crest-like ventral extension stretching along whole segment, proximal end of this extension widely rounded ( Figs. 13 B, C). Tibia and genu I without apophyses. Femora I with longitudinal ventral crest. Tarsus II verrucous in apico-dorsal part and with large ventral verrucous tubercle bearing setae ra and wa ( Fig. 13 D, E). Tibiae II with large claw-like ventral extension curved anterior and forming chela together with corresponding tarsus; extension and dorsal surface of tibia with verrucae. Solenidia φ of tibiae I, II verrucous. Seta cG of genu II strongly thickened in proximal part, approximately 2 times longer than segment, verrucous in distal half; genu with verrucous ventro-proximal part. Femur II with small and rounded dorsal spine. Setae d, e of tarsus IV spiculiform, with distinct basal ring ( Fig. 13 F).

Homeomorph male and female unknown.

Differential diagnosis. The new species belongs to the crassior species group and is most similar to P. gratus Favette et Trouessart, 1904 by having oblique folds on the postero-lateral angles of the subcapitulum, strongly thickened and verrucous setae cG of genua II and a dorsal spine in the distal part of femur II. The heteromorph male of the new species differs from that of P. gratus by the following characters: tibia II has a large, ventral clawlike extension directed anteriorly forming (together with tarsus I) a form of chela, the dorsal spine of femur II is short and rounded, and the subcapitulum is nearly rectangular, width at its base is about 1.2 longer than the width at the bases of the palps. In heteromorph male of P. gratus , tibia II has only a short and rounded antero-ventral tubercle, the dorsal process of femur II is acute, and the subcapitulum is clearly trapezoidal in form, its width at the base is at least 1.5 greater than the width at the bases of the palps. The chela-like structure formed by tarsus and tibia II makes P. rubiginosus similar to P. casuarinus . However, in P. rubiginosus , the claw-like extension is verrucous, tibia and genu II are without a dorsal crest, and seta cG of genu II is simple although thickened. In P. casuarinus , the claw-like extension is smooth, tibia and genu II are without longitudinal dorsal crests, and seta cG of genu II is sword-shaped.

Etymology. The specific epithet was taken from the specific name of the type host.

Remarks. The presence of a large claw-like extension on tibia II in male of the species described above was probably the main reason why this sample was referred by Trouessart to P. brachiatus pugilator , the only Protolichus species with this character known in that time ( Favette & Trouessart 1904). The name P. brachiatus pugilator was wrongly proposed by Trouessart (1899) to substitute for the valid name P. casuarinus Trouessart, 1884 , when he discovered that this species actually occurs on loriines of the genera Chalcopsitta and Pseudeos , and its original finding on a cassowary ( Trouessart 1884; Trouessart & Mégnin 1885) was the consequence of museum contamination. This error was not corrected even in the revision of Protolichus by Favette and Trouessart (1904). W.T. Atyeo, who examined materials of Trouessart collection in 1980s and further ( Gaud & Atyeo 1996), restored the valid name P. casuarinus ; however for an unclear reason he marked the slide MNHN 34F2 as “ syntypes of P. casuarinus ”. The type series of P. casuarinus (slide MNHN 35E4) actually includes a single male, which is a holotype by monotypy ( Mironov & Dabert 2010).

It is necessary to add that the slide MNHN 34F2 also contains a Protolichus female, but it belongs to the brachiatus rather than the crassior species group, because it has flattened and expanded setae e2. We were not able to identify with certainty the species to which this single female belongs.

Figures

FIGURE 12. Protolichus rubiginosus sp. n., heteromorph male. A—dorsal view, B—ventral view.

FIGURE 13. Protolichus rubiginosus sp. n., details of heteromorph male. A—subcapitulum, ventral view, B—leg I, dorsal view, C—leg I, ventral view, D—leg II, dorsal view, E—leg II, ventral view, F—tarsus IV, dorsal view.