Adoribatella, Ferolocella, Joelia and Ophidiotrichus (Acari, Oribatida, Oribatellidae) of North America Behan-Pelletier, Valerie M. Zootaxa 2013 3637 3 254 284 68QC Grandjean, 1953 Grandjean 1953 [151,550,1110,1136] Arachnida Oribatellidae Ophidiotrichus Animalia Sarcoptiformes 17 271 Arthropoda genus   Diagnosis.Adult. Species comprising this genus are unique among Oribatellidae(Grandjean 1953b, Bernini 1975) in having the following combination of character states. Integument pitted. Octotaxic system developed as 4 pairs of porose areas ( Fig. 10). Notogaster with 10 pairs of short setae; land hseries setae positioned lateral to porose areas ( Fig. 10). Lamellae long, broad, with large cusps, medially fused for proximal third to three-quarters of length; cusps usually with small medial and lateral dentes. Interlamellar seta short to four-fifths length of lamella, setiform. Lamellar seta short, thick, heavily barbed ( Fig. 10). Bothridial wall flask-shaped, with indentation laterally. Dorsophragmata paired. Genal tooth broad, subrectangular in shape, with longitudinal ridge laterally, with or without dens ventrodistally ( Fig. 8B). Tutorium narrow, lamelliform, lying parallel to dorsal contour of prodorsum in lateral aspect, extending or not anterior to insertion of rostral seta;cusp narrowly triangular and tapering to point, or narrowly rectangular, with 3–4 dentes distally. Pedotectum I with distinct, deep concave indentation in ventral wall ( Fig. 8B, arrow), visible by transparency in lateral mounts (see Fig. 3D of Behan- Pelletier 2011). Indentation visible by transparency in ventral mounts ( Figs. 11, 12A, C). Epimeral setal formula 3- 1-3-2 or 3-1-3-3. Custodium present, with short, free distal point. Axillary saccule present at base of palp. Chelicera chelate-dentate, large relative to size of body. Palp setal formula 0–2–1–3–9(1); eupathidium acmsubequal in length to solenidion, forming double horn with solenidion along length. Seta mof gena subequal in size and shape to seta a. Humerosejugal porose organ Ah expressed as porose area ( Fig. 8B); porose area Al present or absent, when present expressed as porose area. Legs monodactylous. Femur III with seta l’present (where setation has been studied); seta v'of genua I and II present. Setae l”of genua I and II and tibia II thicker, more heavily barbed and shorter than other setae on these segments. Without anterodorsal spines close to, or between, solenidia φ 1and φ 2on tibia I. Immatures. Apopheredermous, with scalps of preceding instar maintained away from dorsal integument by modified setae daand dorsally directed setae dpand c1.Setae daserpentine in shape with flattened tip. Only setae daand dmfound beneath scalp, seta dppositioned outside scalp and more laterally than in other nymphal Oribatida, including known nymphal  Oribatella. Body colorless, cuticle without plicae or sclerites. All or most gastronotic setae long; setation usually unideficient: larva with 11 or 12 pairs, protonymph deutonymph and tritonymph with 15 pairs (adult loses c1, c3and dseries). Pair of humeral organs present laterally in sejugal region. Without apodemato-acetabular tracheal system or porose homologues. Paraprocts atrichous in larva, protonymph and deutonymph. Genital setal formula (larva to adult): 0–1–3–5–6. Aggenital setal formula 0–0–1–1–1. Opisthonotal gland present in all instars. Cupule development normal. Bothridium and bothridial seta fully formed in all instars. Setation of protonymphal leg IV normal (0–0–0–0–7). Larva to deutonymph with circular line of dehiscence, such that dorsal scalp separates from ventral piece at ecdysis   Remarks. Grandjean (1953a) proposed  Ophidiotrichusas a replacement name for  Tectoribatesauct. (= of some authors).  TectoribatesBerlese 1910, with  Sphaerozetes (Tectoribates) proximusBerlese 1910as typespecies, was and is valid, but the original description was poor and the typespecies could not be found at the time of Grandjean’s study. Grandjean (1953a) noted that several authors, beginning with Sellnick (1928), wrongly considered  Oribata tectaMichaelas the typespecies of  Tectoribates. However, as Grandjean pointed out,   O. tectaMichaelis not similar to S. (T.) proximus, and though both concepts of  Tectoribateswere maintained in the literature, only  TectoribatesBerlese, with  Sphaerozetes (Tectoribates) proximusBerleseas typespecies, is valid. Fortuitously, the typespecies,  Sphaerozetes (Tectoribates) proximusBerlese, was subsequently rediscovered and thoroughly redescribed by Bernini (1973).  Tectoribatesis the subject of ongoing research as there are undescribed species in North America(Behan-Pelletier & Walter, in prep.). Grandjean (1953a) proposed  Oribates connexusBerlese, 1904as typespecies of  Ophidiotrichus, primarily because he had representatives of all stages of this species. His redescription of   O. connexusfocused on immatures, which he illustrated in his usual incomparable manner. Besides   O. connexus, there are a number of species of  Ophidiotrichusdescribed:   O. tectus(Michael, 1884)from England,   O. vindobonensisPiffl, 1961from Austria, described as a subspecies of  connexus, but considered a valid species by Weigmann (2006);   O. exastusHiggins, 1965from eastern USA(redescribed below),   O. ussuricusKrivolutsky, 1971from the Russian Far East,   O. oglasaeBernini, 1975from Italy,   O. corsicanusBernini & Avanzati, 1983from Corsica, and   O. borussicus(Sellnick 1908). The latter was originally considered a variety of  connexus, but it was subsequently compared with typematerial of   O. tectusby Evans (1954, p. 809), who considered it a synonym of   O. tectus. But disagreement on the synonymy of   O. connexus(Berlese 1904)with   O. tectus(Michael)continued. AsLuxton (1989) noted, inaccuracies in Michael’s illustration of   O. tectus(illustrated as tridactylous, but the typematerial is monodactylous) were noted by Grandjean (1932, p. 304) and Evans (1954, p. 809), but were not noted by Grandjean (1953a). Luxton (1989) redescribed   O. tectabased on Michael’s material at the British Museum of Natural History and designated a lectotype. Luxton (1989) did not specifically note the synonymy of   O. connexusand   O. tectus, but Krivolutsky (1975) established the synonymy of   O. connexus var. borussicuswith   O. tectus.This synonymy was recognised by Subías (2004, p. 170) and Weigmann (2006, p. 361); after having examined a specimen of   O. tectusfrom IrelandI also concur.