Joharchi, Omid ¹ ; Karimovich, Mirzoev Tavakal² ; Faizalievich, Safarov Khushdil³ ; Döker, Ismail ⁴ and Khaustov, Vladimir A. ⁵

¹✉ Institute of Environmental and Agricultural Biology (X-BIO), Tyumen State University, Semakova Str.10, 625003 Tyumen, Russia.
²Department of Plant protection and Quarantine, Tajik Agrarian University named Shirinsho Shotemur, 734003, Rudaki Ave. 146, Dushanbe, Republic of Tajikistan.
³Department of Plant protection and Quarantine, Tajik agrarian University named Shirinsho Shotemur, 734003, Rudaki Ave. 146, Dushanbe, Republic of Tajikistan.
⁴Institute of Environmental and Agricultural Biology (X-BIO), Tyumen State University, Semakova Str.10, 625003 Tyumen, Russia & Cukurova University, Agricultural Faculty, Department of Plant Protection, Acarology Laboratory, 01330, Adana, Turkey.
⁵Institute of Environmental and Agricultural Biology (X-BIO), Tyumen State University, Semakova Str.10, 625003 Tyumen, Russia.

2023 - Volume: 63 Issue: 1 pages: 77-88

ZooBank LSID: 86A56EFB-881C-4719-9CCD-A88EAFEBA73E

Original research

Keywords

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

A remarkable diversity of phoretic and parasitic mites is found on dung beetles, representing three main groups: the Mesostigmata, Prostigmata, and Astigmatina. The complex interactions among these mites are not clearly understood, and the role of any single species cannot be determined without considering the impact of other species in the community (Halliday 2019). The family Eviphididae (Acari: Mesostigmata) includes a range of insecticolous species tend to have more intimate associations with dung beetles and flies, even some species inhabit the subelytral cavity of their beetle hosts and breed in their subterranean nesting chambers (Mašán 1994; Mašán & Halliday 2009a, b, 2010; Makarova 1998). The family is cosmopolitan, and includes more than 120 described species placed in 20 genera (Mašán & Halliday 2009a, b, 2010; Joharchi et al. 2014). However, very few species of Eviphididae from Central Asia are included in the existing classification of this family. Bregetova (1977) reviewed the limited available information on this family in former Soviet Union which was included Central Asia. Makarova (1998) erected Cryptoseius Makarova based on adults and a deutonymph of a species collected on Scarabaeus transcaspicus Stolfa (Scarabaeidae) in Turkmenistan. Nevertheless, we do not have any information about the free-living or insect-associated species of Eviphididae from Tajikistan. The genus Metacryptoseius Kazemi & Moraza, 2008 comprises three nominal species, which have been recorded only from Iran and China, where they have been found on Scarabaeus transcaspicus Stolfa and Copris hispanus (L.) (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) (see Kazemi et al. 2008). Herein, we describe the fourth species of the genus on the basis of adults collected on Scarabaeus carinatus (Gebler) (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) from Tajikistan, thereby expanding its geographical range to include Central Asia. In addition, an identification key to all known species of the genus is updated.

Material and methods

Mites were removed from underneath the beetle elytra and cleared in lactic acid solution and mounted in Hoyer's medium (Walter & Krantz 2009). The line drawings and examinations of the specimens were performed with Zeiss Axio Imager A2 compound microscope equipped with differential interference contrast optical systems, attached to camera AxioCam ICc 5. Most images were captured in stacks (with focal depth manually controlled). Selected images were combined using Helicon Focus 7.6.4 Pro (Helicon Soft Ltd., 2000). Digital drawings were prepared using Adobe Photoshop CS2 software based on the original pencil line drawings. Images and morphological measurements were taken via ZEN 2012 software (version 8.0). Photomicrographs were taken with an AxioCam 506 camera (Carl Zeiss, Germany). Measurements of structures are expressed as ranges (minimum–maximum) in micrometers (μm). The length and width of the idiosoma and dorsal shield were taken from the anterior to the posterior margins along the midline, and at the level of j6 respectively. Length and width of the sternal shield were measured at the maximum length and broadest points (at level between coxae II and III) respectively. The length of the epigynal shield was measured along the midline from the anterior margin of the hyaline extension to the posterior margin of the shield, and its width where maximal, posterior to epigynal setae st5. Length of the anal shield was measured along the midline from anterior to the posterior margins of cribrum, and the width at widest point. The length of the second cheliceral segment was taken from its base to the apex of the fixed digit. The lengths of the fixed cheliceral digit were measured from the dorsal poroid to the apex, and that of the movable digit from the base to apex. Leg length was measured from the base of the coxa to the apex of the tarsus (excluding the pre-tarsus). The nomenclature used for the dorsal idiosomal chaetotaxy follows that of Lindquist & Evans (1965) and Mašán & Halliday (2010). The notations for leg and palp setae follow those of Evans (1963a, b), and other anatomical structures mostly follow Evans & Till (1979) as applied to Eviphididae by Mašán & Halliday (2010). Notations for idiosomal pore-like structures (gland pores and poroids/lyrifissures) and peritrematal shield follow mostly Athias-Henriot (1971, 1975). The notations for pore-like structures on the sternal shield and for the peritrematal shield region also follow modifications and additions by Johnston & Moraza (1991). The holotype and paratypes are deposited at the Acarological Collection of the Tyumen State University Museum of Zoology, Tyumen, Russia (TUMZ).

Taxonomy

Family Eviphididae Berlese

Genus Metacryptoseius Kazemi & Moraza

Metacryptoseius Kazemi & Moraza, 2008: 2 (in Kazemi et al. 2008).

Type species Metacryptoseius persicus Kazemi & Moraza, 2008: 2; by original designation.

Diagnosis — The concept of Metacryptoseius used here is based on that of Kazemi et al. (2008).

Metacryptoseius samanii Joharchi & Tavakal n. sp.

ZOOBANK: CA476194-75A8-45EC-9446-3734B9890F40

(Figures 1–5)

Type material

Holotype, female, Tajikistan, Khatlon Region, Danghara, Kavralin village, 38°05′ N, 69°21′ E, alt. 690 m, 27 May 2022, M.K. Tawakal & S.F. Khushdil coll., under elytra of Scarabaeus carinatus (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Paratypes, 11 females and six males, same data as holotype.

Diagnosis (adult female)

Dorsal shield polygonal in shape, posterior margin truncated, slightly narrowed posteriorly, with 26 pairs of simple and variable in length setae; setae j2, z2, z4, s4, s5, S3, S4, S5 conspicuously longer than other setae on shield, ventral seta JV5 longest, about ten times longer than J5 in female; opisthonotal setae shorter; setae z2 and j2 about two times longer than s2 and three times longer than j3 and z1. Sternal setae st2 reaching base of st3 and st3 well past base of st4. Peritreme extends to anterior margin of coxa II. Anal shield subrectangular, with anterior margin slightly convex.

Description adult female

(Figures 1–3)

Six specimens measured.

Dorsal idiosoma — (Figures 1A & 2A) — Length 829–855, width 545–560.

Dorsal shield polygonal in shape, with posterior margin truncated, not covering whole dorsal idiosoma, 639–650 long, 357–378 wide; lightly punctate throughout; shield without distinct reticulate ornamentation except some striations laterally, slightly narrowed posteriorly and anterolateral incisions reaching level of setae z2 to j3; dorsum with 30 pairs of setae: setae j1-j6, J1, J3-J5, z1, z2, z4, z5, Z2-Z5, s2, s4, s5, S3-S5, r2 and r3 on dorsal shield (s2, r2 and r3 on laterodosal elements); setae s6, r5, R3, R5 on soft cuticle, R1 and R4 absent. Dorsal setae j2, z2, s5, S3, S4, S5 (85–100), z4, s4 (65–70) conspicuously longer, other dorsal setae on podonotal (30–40), j1 (19–21) and opisthonotal (16–24), J5 (13–15) shorter. Dorsal shield with 22 pairs of discernible pore-like structures (eight podonotal, 14 opisthonotal), including 15 poroids (five podonotal, ten opisthonotal) and seven gland openings (three podonotal, four opisthonotal); three pairs poroides on soft cuticle, marginal poroid Rp (=idR3) located between setae R3-R5.

Ventral idiosoma — (Figures 1B & 2B) — Tritosternum with paired sparsely pilose laciniae (97–108), trapezoidal base 36–39 × 30–33 wide (Figures 1B & 2B); presternal area lightly sclerotized, with a few transverse curved lines, sternal shield length 163–179, maximum width 180–191, narrowest between coxae II (128–235), whole surface micropunctated (Figures 1B & 2B), shield with irregular anterior and posterior margins; bearing three pairs of smooth setae (st1 57–59, st2 61–65, st3 76–78) and two pairs oval poroids, st2 reaching base of st3 and st3 well past base of st4. Metasternal setae st4 (65–67) and metasternal poroids located on small metasternal platelets (Figures 1B & 2B). Endopodal plates between coxae I/II and II/III completely fused to sternal shield, endopodal plates III/IV elongate, narrow and curved (Figures 1B & 2B). Epigynal shield oblong, hyaline in anteriormost part, slightly expanded posteriorly behind setae st5, surface micropunctate, anterior margin convex, posterior margin broadly rounded; length 159–165, maximum width 80–87, setae st5 (71–74) on lateral borders of shield, paragenital poroids iv5 located on soft cuticle lateral to shield near seta st5. Anal shield subrectangular, with anterior margin slightly convex, surface lightly micropunctate, length 114–118, width 109–120, anus small in size, located on anterior half of shield, para-anal setae (32–34) shorter than post-anal seta (40–50), cribrum small, consisting of a terminal tuft with 4–5 irregular rows of spicules, limited to region posterior to post-anal seta, gland pores gv3 absent (Figures 1B & 2B). Soft opisthogastric cuticle with a pair of nearly oval metapodal platelets (26–34 long × 12–14 wide), five pairs of smooth setae: JV1 (65–70), JV2 (68–75), JV5 (136–144), ZV2 (60–62) and ZV3 (46–48) and six pairs of poroids (iv5, three pairs of ivo; ivp). Parapodal platelets narrow, strip-like, extending narrowly behind coxae IV, bearing gland pore gv2 (Figures 1B & 2B). Peritrematal shield well developed outside peritremes, bearing one pair of gland pore and one poroid; poroid ip2 and adjacent gland pore gp1 inserted on its dorsal edge at level between coxae II and III; post-stigmatic extension of shield absent, poststigmatic gland pore (gp2) on soft cuticle. Peritremes long, extending anteriorly to anterior level of coxae II (Figures 1B & 2B).

Gnathosoma — (Figure 1C-E) — Epistome triangular, with slightly serrate margin, anterior margin almost smooth with apical point (Figure 1D). Corniculi stout, horn-like, acute at tip, internal malae slender, pointed, finely fringed, extending beyond anterior border of palp femur; salivary stylets thin and rounded apically; labrum prominent, blade-like, reaching to palp tibia, with pilose surface; hypostomal and capitular setae smooth, h3 (60–63) < pc (27–30) < h1= h2 (21–25); hypostomal groove with six rows of denticles, all rows connected by lateral margins of groove, each row bearing 2–6 denticles, groove progressively narrowing from anterior to posterior ends (Figure 1C). Supralabral process not distinguishable. Palps with normal setation, chaetotaxy of palps: 2–5–6–14–15, all setae smooth and needle-like; palp tarsus without a pair of long closely-spaced terminal setae, palp tarsal claw two-tined. Chelicerae heavily sclerotized, second cheliceral segment length (153–156), movable digit (59–62) slightly longer than fixed digit (42–45). Cheliceral digits well developed, fixed cheliceral digit with a large median tooth and 2 small proximal teeth, pilus dentilis minute and setiform; dorsal seta short, smooth and near dorso-proximal lyrifissure; movable digit with large subdistal tooth and one small apical tooth, arthrodial brush absent (Figure 1E).

Insemination structures — Not seen, apparently unsclerotised.

Legs — (Figures 3) — Legs II and III short (396–419, 415–428), I and IV longer (460–472, 520–550) (excluding pre-tarsus). Leg I (Figure 3A): coxa 0-0/1, 0/1-0, trochanter 1-0/2, 1/1-1 (av2 elongated, whip-like, pd thickened), femur 2-3/1, 2/3-2 (dorsal and ventral setae thickened; ad1, pd1, pd2 inserted on small tubercles; ad1 (58–61), pd2 (82–85) longest), genu 1-3/2, 2/1-2 (pd2 (75–78) longest), tibia 1-3/2, 2/1-2 (pv thickened). Leg II (Figure 3B): coxa 0-0/1, 0/1-0, trochanter 1-0/2, 0/1-1 (av2 elongated, whip-like), femur 2-3/1, 2/2-1 (ad1, pd1 and pd2 inserted on small tubercles; ad1 (56–59), pd2 (80–83) longest), genu 2-3/1, 2/1-2 (pv thickened), tibia 2-2/1, 2/1-2 (pv thickened). Leg III (Figure 3C): coxa 0-0/1, 0/1-0, trochanter 1-1/1, 0/1-1 (ad and al slightly thickened), femur 1-2/1, 1/1-1 (ad1and pd inserted on small tubercles), genu 1-2/1, 2/1-1 (dorsal setae inserted on small tubercles), tibia: 1-1/1, 2/1-1. Leg IV (Figure 3D): coxa 0-0/1, 0/0-0, trochanter 1-1/1, 0/1-1 (ad and al slightly thickened, pv elongated), femur 1-2/1, 1/1-1 (ad1, pd1 and pd inserted on small tubercles; ad1 (50–53) longest), genu 1-2/1, 2/1-1 (dorsal setae inserted on small tubercles), tibia 1-1/1, 2/1-1. Tarsi II-IV with 18 setae (3- 3/2, 3/2-3 + mv, md); seta av1 enlarged and thick, with dentated tip, pv1 (62–80) longer than others. All pretarsi with well-developed paired stout claws, rounded pulvilli and normal ambulacral stalk.

Description adult male

(Figures 4 & 5)

Six specimens measured.

Dorsal idiosoma — (Figure 5A) — Length 648–677, width 441–451.

Dorsal shield 585–620 long, 373–377 wide, with ornamentation, adenotaxy and poroidotaxy similar to those of female, except length of dorsal shield setae shorter than those of female (Figure 5A): podonotal setae 29–40 long (except z2 (41–43) and s5 (45–48), opisthonotal setae 27–43 (J5=25–27) long.

Ventral idiosoma — (Figures 4A & 5B) — Tritosternum with paired sparsely pilose laciniae (87–93), trapezoidal base 23–27 × 26–29 wide. Sternal, genital, endopodal shields fused into holoventral shield, 272–287 long from anterior to posterior margins of shield, wide at levels of setae st2 and st5, (114–117) and (57–60) respectively; shield surface micropunctated, weakly reticulate, more distinct anteriorly, margins heavily sclerotized and frame-like, especially between coxae III–IV (Figures 4A & 5B), shield with five pairs thickened sternal setae st1 (34–38), st2 (32–34), st3 (36–39), st4, st5 (38–41), and three pairs of oval poroids. Soft opisthogastric cuticle with five pairs of smooth setae: JV1 (31–42), JV2 (39–45), JV5 (54–61), ZV2 (23–26) and ZV3 (17–21) and four pairs of poroids (iv5, two pairs of ivo and ivp). Peritremes slightly shorter than those of female, extending anteriorly to mid-level of coxa II (Figures 4A & 5B). Parapodal and metapodal shields similar to those in female (Figures 4A & 5B). Anal shield as for female (100–104 long, 98–114 wide); para-anal setae (27–30) slightly longer than post-anal seta (24–27) (Figures 4A & 5B).

Gnathosoma — (Figure 4B-D) — Epistome and subcapitulum similar to female, except corniculi thumb-like, with rounded tip (Figure 4C) and epistome with more serration on its anterior margin (Figure 4B). Chelicera 154–157 long; movable digit (57–60) longer than fixed digit (33–36) (Figure 4D); spermatodactyl 18–22 long and truncate distally (Figure 4D). Fixed digit of chelicera with only one tooth and a short setiform pilus dentilis; movable digit with two teeth; hyaline process apparently absent.

Legs — (Figures 5A & 5B) — Chaetotaxy as in female, except seta av-1 on tarsi II-IV conical shape and bifid and pv-1 with basal third broad and rest whip-like. Length of legs I-IV, (400–432), (392–397), (390–395) and (491–511) respectively.

Immature stages

Unknown.

Etymology

The species is named in memory of Ismail Samani, the leader of the first nation of the Tajiks.

Remarks

Kazemi and Moraza (in Kazemi et al. 2008) erected the genus Metacryptoseius to accommodate two new species M. persicus and M. khorasanicus, which were described associated with scarab beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) in northeast Iran. Meanwhile, they transferred Scamaphis guyimingi Ma, 1997 to the genus Metacryptoseius because the species was completely agree with their concept of the genus. Afterwards, Bahrami et al. (2011) collected Metacryptoseius persicus Kazemi & Moraza in association with three different beetle hosts— Scarabaeus transcaspicus Stolfa (Scarabaeidae), Herpalus sp. (Carabidae) and Osphranteria coerulescens Redtenbacher (Cerambycidae). Since that time, there has been no other formal occurrence or recording of Metacryptoseius in the world, and is now recorded in Central Asia for the first time. The genus Metacryptoseius is superficially similar in its morphology to Cryptoseius Makarova 1998 but this problem was comprehensively discussed by Kazemi et al. (2008).

A simple analysis of setae measures reveals both similarities and dissimilarities when comparing Metacryptoseius samanii to the other three described congeners. Metacryptoseius samanii Joharchi & Tavakal most closely resembles M. khorasanicus Kazemi & Moraza, 2008 (first couplet in the identification key to Metacryptoseius species provided by Kazemi et al. 2008), due to the dorsal setae on shield conspicuously variable in length, z2 longer than s2, setae Jv5 ten times longer than J5 and males with setae z2 twice longer than s2. Metacryptoseius samanii can easily be distinguished from M. khorasanicus and two other described congeners by having dorsal setae s4, s5, S3, S4, S5 conspicuously longer than most of other setae on shield (versus s/S-series setae short in all three described congeners), dorsal shield polygonal in shape, with posterior margin truncated (versus dorsal shield ovoid in shape, with rounded posterior margin in M. khorasanicus), males with oval shaped most anterior poroids and peritremes slightly shorter than those of female (versus the anterior poroids slit-like and the length of peritremes similar to those of female in three described congeners). Kazemi et al. (2008) created a key to distinguish Metacryptoseius species. However, the key does not work very well to distinguish M. khorasanicus and M. guyimingi (Ma) based on the length of setae JV5 [couplet 1: '' setae JV5 eight to ten times longer than J5 ″], because both species have very long setae JV5 (about eight to ten times longer than J5), whereas they mentioned M. guyimingi (Ma) with setae JV5 about four times longer than J5 [couplet 2, the identification key of the genus in Kazemi et al. (2008)] but in the dorsal idiosoma of Scamaphis guyimingi illustrated by Ma (1997, page 38, Fig. 1), setae JV5 considerably longer than J5 (about eight to ten times).

Key to species of genus Metacryptoseius (adult female)

Partly from Kazemi et al. (2008).

1. Sternal setae st2 long (reaching at least base of st3)
...... 2

— Sternal setae st2 short (barely reaching more than half the st2–st3 distance)
...... 3

2. Dorsal shield polygonal in shape, with posterior margin truncated, shield setae in s/S-series conspicuously longer than most of other setae on shield
...... M. samanii Joharchi & Tavakal n. sp.

— Dorsal shield ovoid in shape, with rounded posterior margin, shield setae in s/S-series short (not longer than other setae on shield), except s2
...... M. khorasanicus Kazemi & Moraza

3. Setae JV5 eight to ten times longer than J5; dorsal setae j2, z2, r2, r3, r5 and s6 conspicuously longer than other dorsal setae
...... M. guyimingi (Ma)

— Setae JV5 about four times longer than J5; dorsal setae on shield not conspicuously variable in length, mostly subequal
...... M. persicus Kazemi & Moraza

Acknowledgements

The present research was supported by the grant from the Russian Science Foundation, project number 20–64–47015. We cordially thank Dr. Andrey Frolov (Laboratory of Insect Systematics, Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences) for identification of beetle species. Our sincere thanks to Maria Lourdes Moraza and an anonymous reviewer for their comments on this paper.

References

1. Athias-Henriot C. 1971. La divergence néotaxique des Gamasides (Arachnides). Bulletin Sc Bourgogne, 28: 93-106. [in French].
2. Athias-Henriot C. 1975. Nouvelles notes sur les Amblyseiini. 2. Le relevé organotaxique de la face dorsale adulte (gamasides, protoadéniques, Phytoseiidae). Acarologia, 17: 20-29. [in French].
3. Bregetova N.G. 1977. Fam. Eviphididae Berlese, 1913. In: Gilyarov M.S., Bregetova N.G. (Eds). Key to the Soil-Inhabiting Mites. Mesostigmata. Leningrad: Nauka. pp. 554-569. [In Russian]
4. Bahrami F., Arbabi M., Vafaei Shoushtari R., Kazemi Sh. 2011. Mesostigmatic mites associated with Coleoptera and biodiversity calculation of these mites phoretic on dung beetles in Golestan Province (north of Iran). Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 9 (3): 345-366.
5. Evans G.O. 1963a. Observations on the chaetotaxy of the legs in the free-living Gamasina (Acari: Mesostigmata). Bull. Br. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), Zool., 10: 277-303. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.part.20528
6. Evans G.O. 1963b. Some observations on the chaetotaxy of the pedipalps in the Mesostigmata (Acari). Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (Ser. 13), 6: 513-527. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222936308651393
7. Evans G.O., Till W.M. 1979. Mesostigmatid mites of Britain and Ireland (Chelicerata: Acari - Parasitiformes). An introduction to their external morphology and classification. Trans. Zool. Soc. Lond., 35: 145-270. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.1979.tb00059.x
8. Halliday B. 2019. The enemy of my parasite is my friend: the possible role of predatory mites as biological control agents of pest beetles in soil. Int. J. Acarol., 45(4): 189-196. https://doi.org/10.1080/01647954.2019.1574895
9. Joharchi O., Mašán P., Babaeian, E. 2014. A new genus and species of edaphic mite (Acari: Mesostigmata: Eviphididae) from Iran. Zootaxa, 3774 (3), 275-281. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3774.3.4
10. Johnston D.E., Moraza M.L. 1991. The idiosomal adenotaxy and poroidotaxy of Zerconidae (Mesostigmata: Zerconina). In: Dusbábek F., Bukva V. (Eds). Modern Acarology. Vol. 2. Academia: Prague. p. 349-356.
11. Kazemi S., Moraza M.L., Kamali K., Saboori A. 2008. A new genus and three new species of Eviphididae (Acari: Mesostigmata) associated with scarab beetles in Iran. Zootaxa, 1852: 1-20. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.1852.1.1
12. Lindquist E.E., Evans G.O. 1965. Taxonomic concepts in the Ascidae, with a modified setal nomenclature for the idiosoma of the Gamasina (Acarina: Mesostigmata). Mem. Entomol. Soc. Can., 47: 1-65. https://doi.org/10.4039/entm9747fv
13. Ma L.M. 1997. Two new species of the family Eviphididae and discovery of the genus Scamaphis in China (Acari: Mesostigmata). Acta Arachnol. Sin., 6: 37-41. [in Chinese, English abstr.]
14. Makarova O.L. 1998. A new eviphidid mite genus (Parasitiformes: Mesostigmata: Eviphididae) associated with the dung beetle Scarabaeus transcaspius Stolfa (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) in Turkmenistan. Acarologia, 39: 115-122.
15. Mašán P. 1994. The eviphidid mites (Acarina: Mesostigmata; Eviphididae) associated with scarabaeid and carrion beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae, Silphidae) in central Europe. Acarologia, 35: 3-19.
16. Mašán P., Halliday R.B. 2009a. Three new genera of the mite family Eviphididae (Acari: Mesostigmata). Zootaxa, 2013: 43-57. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.2013.1.4
17. Mašán P., Halliday R.B. 2009b. Mesostigmatid mites associated with the dung beetle Copris lunaris (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Eur. J. Entomol., 106: 545-550. https://doi.org/10.14411/eje.2009.068
18. Mašán P., Halliday R.B. 2010. Review of the European genera of Eviphididae (Acari: Mesostigmata) and the species occurring in Slovakia. Zootaxa, 2585: 1-122. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.2585.1.1
19. Walter D.E., Krantz G.W. 2009. Collecting, rearing and preparing specimens. In: Krantz G.W., Walter D.E. (Eds.). A Manual of Acarology. 3rd Edition. Lubbock, Texas: Texas Tech University Press. p. 83-95.

instructions