Laelaspisella berlesei Joharchi

Joharchi, Omid, Babaeian, Esmaeil & Jalalizand, Alireza, 2016, Review of the genus Laelaspisella Marais & Loots, with the description of a new species from Iran (Acari, Laelapidae), ZooKeys 549, pp. 13-22 : 17

Taxon classification Animalia Mesostigmata Laelapidae

Laelaspisella berlesei Joharchi nom. n.

Laelaps (Eulaelaps) canestrinii Berlese 1903: 13.

Laelaps (Hypoaspis) canestrinii Berlese 1904: 412.

Gymnolaelaps canestrinii (Berlese, 1903) sensu Costa, 1962: 491.

Remarks.

The identity of Laelaspisella canestrinii is very confused. In Laelaps canestrinii Berlese, 1892, the female has a very wide genito-ventral shield carrying four pairs of setae in addition to st5, and has a straight posterior margin. There are no setae between the genito-ventral and anal shields. The sternal shield has only two pairs of setae, the metasternal plates and setae are absent, the anal shield is wider than long, and the movable digit of the chelicera has three teeth. In the male the anal shield is fused to the genito-ventral shield, with the fusion marked by a distinct line. Berlese (1903) referred to this species as Laelaps (Eulaelaps) canestrinii . Berlese (1904) then added some morphological information and illustrations for a species that he called Laelaps (Hypoaspis) canestrinii . In these illustrations the genito-ventral shield of the female carries only one pair of setae and has a rounded posterior margin. The anal shield is narrow, and there is a pair of setae between the genito-ventral shield and the anal shield. In the male, the anal shield is clearly separate from the genito-ventral shield. These descriptions appear to refer to two different species. Hunter (1967) referred to this problem but did not resolve it. Laelaps canestrinii does not belong to the genera Laelaps or Hypoaspis , and a solution to the identification of the true genus of Laelaps canestrinii Berlese, 1892 can only come from a detailed study of Berlese’s specimens. The 1904 re-description is only a misidentification of the 1892 species. Costa (1962) re-described and illustrated a species he called Gymnolaelaps canestrinii (Berlese, 1903), but he did not mention Laelaps canestrinii Berlese, 1892. Costa was wrong about this species because only the 1892 description and illustrations refer to the true species of canestrinii . Therefore Laelaps canestrinii sensu Berlese (1903), ( 1904) and Costa (1962) does not have a name. Therefore, we rename this species as Laelaspisella berlesei Joharchi, nom. n. (= Laelaps (Eulaelaps) canestrinii Berlese, 1903 = Laelaps (Hypoaspis) canestrinii Berlese, 1904 = Gymnolaelaps canestrinii (Berlese, 1903) sensu Costa, 1962) in honour of Antonio Berlese. In view of this confusion, it is difficult to determine the identity of the specimens cited under these names by other authors.