A revision of the family Ameroseiidae (Acari, Mesostigmata), with some data on Slovak fauna

Mašán, Peter

doi:10.3897/zookeys.704.13304

Cited by 19 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 79 publications

(218 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Ameroseius corbicula and P . beta are also species found in moist places and on the bodies or in the nests of beetles, small mammals, and birds (Hyatt, ; Kalúz, ; Mašán, ). Although most oribatids were sensitive to flooding, L .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

River islands as habitats for soil mites (Acari)

Faleńczyk-Koziróg

Skubała

Habel

et al. 2019

River Research & Apps

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

River islands are a natural element of fluvial river systems. They are the refuge of many species of plants and animals and of unchanged ecological systems. Due to their spatial isolation, river islands are good places to observe colonization processes of both flora and fauna (biota). The goal of our research was to observe the development of soil mite communities colonizing the river island. Mite communities on river islands are dominated by eurytopic species, which are r-strategists, reproduce parthenogenetically, and can be dispersed either passively by the wind or actively by phoresis on insects, small mammals, or birds. The main factors limiting the diversity of acarofauna on river islands are floods (and the resulting soil moisture content of the environment) and spatial isolation. The fertility of the habitat (content of humus) is of less importance. The results of our research indicate that Oribatida are the most sensitive to frequent flooding and high soil moisture, and they were the least effective in colonizing the island. Among the species resistant to the abovementioned limiting factors were Cheiroseius borealis, Cheiroseius bryophillus,

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

River islands as habitats for soil mites (Acari)

Faleńczyk-Koziróg

Skubała

Habel

et al. 2019

River Research & Apps

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…in Table 3 like astigmatids? Do pollen and nectar-feeding ameroseiids (Mašán 2017) have a different design? Can cheliceral parameters shed light on what epicriids, zerconids (Evans 1979;Ujvári 2011) and heterozerconids (Klompen et al 2013) are likely to feed on?…”

Section: Validating the Importance Of Taxonomic Positionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Feeding design in free-living mesostigmatid chelicerae (Acari: Anactinotrichida)

Bowman

2021

Exp Appl Acarol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A model based upon mechanics is used in a re-analysis of historical acarine morphological work augmented by an extra seven zoophagous mesostigmatid species. This review shows that predatory mesostigmatids do have cheliceral designs with clear rational purposes. Almost invariably within an overall body size class, the switch in predatory style from a worm-like prey feeding (‘crushing/mashing’ kill) functional group to a micro-arthropod feeding (‘active prey cutting/slicing/slashing' kill) functional group is matched by: an increased cheliceral reach, a bigger chelal gape, a larger morphologically estimated chelal crunch force, and a drop in the adductive lever arm velocity ratio of the chela. Small size matters. Several uropodines (Eviphis ostrinus, the omnivore Trachytes aegrota, Urodiaspis tecta and, Uropoda orbicularis) have more elongate chelicerae (greater reach) than their chelal gape would suggest, even allowing for allometry across mesostigmatids. They may be: plesiosaur-like high-speed strikers of prey, scavenging carrion feeders (like long-necked vultures), probing/burrowing crevice feeders of cryptic nematodes, or small morsel/fragmentary food feeders. Some uropodoids have chelicerae and chelae which probably work like a construction-site mechanical excavator-digger with its small bucket. Possible hoeing/bulldozing, spore-cracking and tiny sabre-tooth cat-like striking actions are discussed for others. Subtle changes lead small mesostigmatids to be predator–scavengers (mesocarnivores) or to be predator–fungivores (hypocarnivores). Some uropodines (e.g., the worm-like prey feeder Alliphis siculus and, Uropoda orbicularis) show chelae similar in design to astigmatids and cryptostigmatids indicating possible facultative saprophagy. Scale matters—obligate predatory designs (hypercarnivory) start for mesostigmatids with chelal gape > 150 μm and cheliceral reach > 350 μm (i.e., about 500–650 μm in body size). Commonality of trophic design in these larger species with solifugids is indicated. Veigaia species with low chelal velocity ratio and other morphological strengthening specialisms, appear specially adapted in a concerted way for predating active soft and fast moving springtails (Collembola). Veigaia cerva shows a markedly bigger chelal gape than its cheliceral reach would proportionately infer suggesting it is a crocodile-like sit-and-wait or ambush predator par excellence. A small chelal gape, low cheliceral reach, moderate velocity ratio variant of the worm-like feeding habit design is supported for phytoseiid pollenophagy. Evidence for a resource partitioning model in the evolution of gnathosomal development is found. A comparison to crustacean claws and vertebrate mandibles is made. Alliphis siculus and Rhodacarus strenzkei are surprisingly powerful mega-cephalics for their small size. Parasitids show a canid-like trophic design. The chelicera of the nematophagous Alliphis halleri shows felid-like features. Glyphtholaspis confusa has hyaena-like cheliceral dentition. The latter species has a markedly smaller chelal gape than its cheliceral reach would suggest proportionately, which together with a high chelal velocity ratio and a high estimated chelal crunch force matches a power specialism of feeding on immobile tough fly eggs/pupae by crushing (durophagy). A consideration of gnathosomal orientation is made. Predatory specialisms appear to often match genera especially in larger mesostigmatids, which may scale quite differently. Comparison to holothyrids and opilioacarids indicates that the cheliceral chelae of the former are cutting-style and those of the latter are crushing-style. A simple validated easy-to-use ‘2:1 on’ predictive algorithm of feeding habit type is included based on a strength-speed tradeoff in chelal velocity ratio for ecologists to test in the field.

show abstract

“…Ameroseius Berlese is the largest genus with about 100 described species. Some authors assigned Kleemannia as a probable synonym of Ameroseius (Westerboer and Bernhard, 1963;Halliday, 1997;Karg, 2005;Karg and Schorlemmer, 2009;Narita et al, 2013); however, Mašán (2017), in a recent family revision, validated Kleemannia and removed it from synonymy with Ameroseius, depending on variations in the number of posterolateral setae on genu III and tibia III-IV; proximal teeth on fixed cheliceral digits; preanal setae on ventrianal shield; the palptarsal claw two-tined (Kleemannia) or three-tined (Ameroseius); and the tectum usually with sharp pointed apex in Kleemannia. Hajizadeh et al (2013) listed this species as Ameroseius novus (Nasr & Abou-Awad), and since the species was transferred from the genus Kleemannia to Ameroseius, the epithet 'nova' , which is feminine, was consecutively changed to 'novus' to fit the new masculine genus name 'Ameroseius' .…”

Section: Species Accountsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hajizadeh et al (2013) listed this species as Ameroseius novus (Nasr & Abou-Awad), and since the species was transferred from the genus Kleemannia to Ameroseius, the epithet 'nova' , which is feminine, was consecutively changed to 'novus' to fit the new masculine genus name 'Ameroseius' . Herein, we follow the work of Mašán (2017) and list the species as K. nova, which was described as new due to having 29 pairs of sword-like dorsal setae except the vertical setae j1, which are fan-like (Figures 1 and 2). The type material of K. nova was collected from manure in the Kafr Elsheikh governorate, which agrees with the present finding of K. nova from manure, bird nests, and feathers (Table ), suggesting that it may feed on fungal matter in these habitats.…”

Section: Species Accountsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The main classification works followed in the identification of different mites were as follows: Ameroseiidae (Nasr and Abou-Awad, 1986;Mašán, 2017); Blattisociidae and Laelapidae (Basha and Yousef, 2000); Dermanyssidae (Di Palma et al, 2012); Macronyssidae (Zumpt and Till, 1961;Radovsky and Yunker, 1963;Evans and Till, 1979); Melicharidae (Faraji, 2011;Abo-Shnaf and de Moraes, 2016); Phytoseiidae (Chant and McMurtry, 2007); and Uropodoidea (Evans, 1957). The voucher material is preserved as slide-mounted specimens in the Acari collection at Shandaweel Research Station, Agricultural Research Center, Sohag.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Mesostigmata mites (Acari: Parasitiformes) associated with birds and their nests from Egypt

Negm¹,

Mohamed²,

El-Gepaly³

et al. 2018

Turk J Zool

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Birds are attacked by a remarkable diversity of ectoparasites, mostly arthropods. After lice (Insecta: Phthiraptera), the richest group is mites (Arachnida: Acari). Several mite families, with about 2500 species (Proctor and Owens, 2000), live in close association with birds being less harmful, such as feather mites (Astigmata: Analgoidea, Pterolichoidea), or severe blood feeders (Dermanyssidae and Macronyssidae). The existence and feeding of parasitic mites may cause some pathological effects like irritation, anemia, allergy, transmission of pathogens, and death as well (Chirico et al., 2003). While surveying parasitic mites associated with Egyptian birds, we recognized the need for taxonomical and ecological information that could be useful for bird biologists, veterinarians, and ornithologists interested in studying bird-associated mites. Faunistic studies about mites of birds in Egypt are limited. First reports of mites from Egyptian birds were published by Wafa and Soliman (1968) for Prostigmata (Cheyletidae), by Rakha (1980) for Astigmata, and by Zaher (1986) for mites of various orders. Abd-Alla

show abstract

A revision of the family Ameroseiidae (Acari, Mesostigmata), with some data on Slovak fauna

Cited by 19 publications

References 79 publications

River islands as habitats for soil mites (Acari)

River islands as habitats for soil mites (Acari)

Feeding design in free-living mesostigmatid chelicerae (Acari: Anactinotrichida)

Mesostigmata mites (Acari: Parasitiformes) associated with birds and their nests from Egypt

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About