Corresponding author: Gilberto J. de Moraes (
Academic editor: Vladimir Pesic
Chandrapatya A, Konvipasruang P, Flechtmann CHW, Moraes GJ (2014) Complementary description of
All
The objective of this paper is to present a morphological description of that Thai population (based on adult females and males), to discuss the constitution of the genus, to provide a tentative dichotomous key to
Specimens used for the complementary description of
The mites were mounted in modified Berlese medium (
All terminology and measurements follow
The revised characterization of the genus and the dichotomous key were prepared by examining the original descriptions of each species, except for
Frontal lobe of prodorsal shield rounded, broad-based, short; with parallel microtuberculate lines around lateral margin of ocellar gibbosities; median and admedian lines between anterior shield margin and region slightly anterior to shield center usually broken (indistinct in some specimen), and then continuous to posterior shield margin (broken in some specimens); with several incomplete submedian lines; empodia entire, 5-rayed; opisthosoma with 67–85 microtuberculate annuli; coverflap with longitudinal ridges arranged in two transverse rows. Genital apodeme usually visible as a narrow dark band in ventral view, but sometimes appearing to constitute a pair of subtriangular structures, depending on the position of the focus; spermathecal apparatus moderate distance from apodeme; with 4 coxigenital semiannuli anterior to coverflap, with genital opening somewhat appressed to coxisternum II.
Female (
Variation of prodorsal shield sculpture of
12 adult females and 5 adult males on 14 slides labeled # 2874, from Mueang Samut Songkhram District, Samut Songkhram Province,
Coconut (
All specimens were collected from under the bracts of coconut fruit, causing usually the appearance of scanty triangular brown patches of damaged tissue on the fruit surface next to the bracts under which the colonies of the mites developed. In a few occasions damage was slightly more extensive, and the mite apparently caused premature fruit drop.
The morphological characteristics described generally fit the original description of the species, which was much less detailed. Slight differences, subsequently referred to, are considered to represent intraspecific variations. In the original description, admedian lines were mentioned as being complete, which was not the case with the specimens collected in this study. The illustration provided in the original description of the species indicates the presence of a few more submedian lines than observed in the specimens from Thailand. The original description mentioned frontal lobe of prodorsal shield to be truncate. The illustration of prodorsal shield design in the original description shows six partial rings antero-laterally, which is not seen in our specimens; internal coxisternal apodeme is also present in some Thai specimens, but it is not shown in the original description.
As stated by
An evaluation of the species assigned to this genus leads to the conclusion that the first of those characteristics (position of genital opening) holds true for all of them. In relation to the second characteristic, the majority of the species placed in this genus has been mentioned to have narrow genital apodemes. However, nothing has been mentioned in the literature about the shape of the genital apodemes of
Available illustrations of
Nothing has been reported about the shape of the genital apodemes for the following species transferred to or originally described in
An evaluation of the species referred to
In the original description,
A revised characterization of
In a recent publication,
1 | Without evident ocellar gibbosities; empodia 4-rayed | 2 |
1’ | With or without evident ocellar gibbosities; empodia 5- or 6-rayed | 3 |
2 | Prodorsal shield without frontal lobe; region between admedian lines with many short lines; on |
|
2’ | Prodorsal shield with frontal lobe; region between admedian lines with few short lines; on |
|
3 | With evident ocellar gibbosities; empodia 6-rayed; all opisthosomal annuli microtuberculate | 4 |
3’ | With or without ocellar gibbosities; empodia 5-rayed; posterior-most opisthosomal dorsal annuli with or without microtubercles | 6 |
4 | Opisthosomal seta |
|
4’ | Opisthosomal seta |
5 |
5 | Scapular seta |
|
5’ | Scapular seta |
|
6 | Prodorsal shield smooth, except for few curved broken bases of admedian lines restricted to region between scapular tubercles and a tiny remnant of median line; without evident ocellar gibbosities; most posterior dorsal opisthosomal annuli without microtubercles; on |
|
6’ | Prodorsal shield with more extensive lines; with or without evident ocellar gibbosities; most posterior dorsal opisthosomal annuli with or without microtubercles; on other hosts | 7 |
7 | Median line on prodorsal shield only distinguishable posteriorly, joined by broken arched lines to admedian lines, so as to form a pair of roundish cells at the base of the admedian lines; genital coverflap with longitudinal ridges arranged in two distinct transverse rows, those of the anterior row much shorter, fine and less evident than those of the posterior row; on |
|
7’ | Median line on prodorsal shield not joined by broken arched lines to admedian lines; longitudinal ridges of genital coverflap not characteristically arranged in two transverse rows or, if so, then anterior row not composed of distinctly shorter, fine and less evident ridges than those of the posterior row | 8 |
8 | Prodorsal shield with frontal lobe (sometimes barely distinguishable) | 9 |
8’ | Prodorsal shield without frontal lobe | 19 |
9 | Prodorsal shield with lateral granulation; without evident ocellar gibbosities | 10 |
9’ | Prodorsal shield without lateral granulation; with or without evident ocellar gibbosities | 11 |
10 | Opisthosomal setae |
|
10’ | Opisthosomal setae |
|
11 | Opisthosoma with 60–85 annuli | 12 |
11’ | Opisthosoma with less than 60 annuli (except |
14 |
12 | With evident ocellar gibbosities; with 67–85 microtuberculate annuli; on |
|
12’ | Without evident ocellar gibbosities; with 61–75 annuli, all microtuberculate or posterior ten dorsal annuli with few microtubercles | 13 |
13 | Opisthosoma with 61–68 annuli; posterior 10 dorsal annuli with few microtubercles; on |
|
13’ | Opisthosoma with 75 microtuberculate annuli; on |
|
14 | Admedian lines on prodorsal shield well defined and complete; ocellar gibbosities absent; all opisthosomal annuli microtuberculate | 15 |
14’ | Admedian lines on prodorsal shield generally not well defined (or broken), may be distinct on posterior half of prodorsal shield; microtubercles may be absent on posterior opisthosomal dorsal annuli | 16 |
15 | Median line totally distinct; opisthosoma with 53–63 microtuberculate annuli; opisthosomal setae |
|
15’ | Median line distally indistinct; opisthosoma with 48–50 microtuberculate annuli; microtubercles fading dorsally on posterior 10 annuli; opisthosomal setae |
|
16 | Without evident ocellar gibbosities; opisthosoma with 50–57 microtuberculate annuli; microtubercles rectangular dorsally, fading on posterior 10 annuli; on |
|
16’ | With or without evident ocellar gibbosities; opisthosoma with 50–59 microtuberculate annuli; microtubercles oval dorsally, may be missing on posterior-most annuli; on other hosts | 17 |
17 | Frontal lobe of prodorsal shield much broader than long; with ocellar gibbosities (sometimes not well distinct); opisthosoma with 54–59 microtuberculate annuli; microtubercles fading dorsally on posterior 15 annuli; on |
|
17’ | Frontal lobe of prodorsal shield about as broad as long or slightly broader than long; with or without evident ocellar gibbosities; opisthosoma with 50–55 microtuberculate annuli; posterior-most opisthosomal dorsal annuli with or without microtubercles; on other hosts | 18 |
18 | Region between admedian lines on prodorsal shield with many short lines; with prominent ocellar gibbosities; opisthosoma with 55 microtuberculate annuli; on |
|
18’ | Region between admedian lines on prodorsal shield only with median line; without prominent ocellar gibbosities; opisthosoma with 50–55 microtuberculate annuli; posterior dorsal 15 annuli without microtubercles; on |
|
19 | Opisthosoma with 70–94 annuli; with evident ocellar gibbosities | 20 |
19’ | Opisthosoma with at most 66 annuli; with or without evident ocellar gibbosities | 21 |
20 | Opisthosomal setae |
|
20’ | Opisthosomal setae |
|
21 | Ocellar gibbosities absent; genital coverflap with longitudinal ridges arranged in a single row | |
21’ | Ocellar gibbosities well evident, ill-defined or absent; genital coverflap with longitudinal ridges arranged in two transverse rows | 22 |
22 | With evident ocellar gibbosities; opisthosoma with about 62 microtuberculate annuli; microtubercles broadly oval; on |
|
22’ | With ill defined ocellar gibbosities; opisthosoma with 49–61 microtuberculate annuli, of which the 8–10 posterior-most without microtubercles; microtubercles elongate dorsally and ventrally, shorter and more rounded laterally; on |
The kinds of injury caused by
While several of these species are known to attack ornamental plants, only 3 species have been reported from major crops:
We thank Prof. James W. Amrine Jr. and Prof. Philipp Chetverikov for their major collaboration reviewing a former version of this manuscript, for providing invaluable suggestions in the interpretation of the concepts expressed in this paper, and for providing several photographs of specimens from Santo, Vanuatu for comparison with the specimens collected in Thailand. To Dr. Patchanee Vichitbandha, Science Division, Faculty of Liberal Arts and Science, Kasetsart University, Kamphaeng Saen Campus, Thailand and Mrs. Yingniyom Riyaphan of Surat Thani Oil Palm Research Center, Department of Agriculture, Surat Thani Province, Thailand for collecting samples. To Leocadia Sánchez-Ramirez for making specimens of