Mites of Australia: A Checklist and Bibliography

By RB Halliday

This Checklist brings together for the first time the names of all 2620 described species of mites that are known to occur in Australia. It gives the correct nomenclature for each species, and places every species in the appropriate genus and family, using the latest available classification. The Checklist also provides a bibliography of information on biogeography, economic importance and, in the case of pests, biology and control.

This work is a baseline from which more detailed and specific research projects will draw their fundamental data.

• Language: English
• Publisher: CSIRO PUBLISHING
• Release date: Jan 1, 1998
• ISBN: 9780643105898

Book preview

Monographs on Invertebrate Taxonomy

Other books in the series:

Vol. 1. Australian Lauxaniid Flies

Revision of the Australian species of Homoneura van der Wulp,

Trypetisoma Malloch, and allied genera (Diptera: Lauxaniidae)

SP Kim

Vol. 2. Click Beetles

Genera of the Australian Elateridae (Coleoptera)

AA Calder

Vol. 3. Australian Ants

A Guide to the Genera

SO Shattuck

Vol. 4. The Australian Water Mites

A Guide to Families and Genera

MS Harvey

Vol. 6. Oribatid Mites

A Catalogue of Australian Genera and Species

MJ Colloff and RB Halliday

National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry

Halliday, Robert B.

Mites of Australia: A Checklist and Bibliography.

Bibliography.

Index.

ISBN 0 643 06370 6

1. Mites - Australia.

I. CSIRO. II. Title (Series: Monographs on invertebrate taxonomy; vol 5) .

595.420994

© CSIRO Australia 1998

This book is available from:

CSIRO PUBLISHING

PO Box 1139 (150 Oxford Street)

Collingwood, VIC 3066

Australia

Tel:  [phone] Int: +(613)96627666

Fax: [phone] Int: +(613)96627555

Email: [e-mail]

http://www.publish.csiro.au

Published with support from

The Schlinger Foundation

and The ANIC Fund

Printed in Australia

FOREWORD

The idea that taxonomic publications can be arranged in a sequence of increasing degrees of detail has now become familiar. The works that are broadest in scope but contain the lowest level of detail are usually thought of as checklists. The major strength of a checklist is that it provides an overview of the state of knowledge of a large group of organisms, much larger than can be covered in a more detailed work. Once a checklist has been produced, parts of it may be chosen for expansion into catalogues, which include greater detail but are more difficult to produce. One of the functions of the checklist or catalogue is to draw attention to smaller groups that can be selected for genus-level revisions of a family or group of families or, with sufficient resources and motivation, into a comprehensive species-level revision. The increasing level of detail of these kinds of works is correlated with the effort and expense required to produce them, so an author must decide how much effort to invest in a project, and so determine the scope and level of detail of the resulting publication.

The group of organisms that I deal with here is the Australian mites. My IO-year survey of the relevant literature showed that 2620 named species of mites have been recorded from Australia. I was faced with the decision of how best to summarise the available information about these species. A checklist was the obvious first step, but what then? I was determined to avoid repeating other people’s errors of nomenclature and spelling, so I attempted to see the original descriptions of every species, genus, and family. Once I had invested the effort required to obtain and read that literature, it seemed reasonable to share the results of my labours by citing these works and giving comprehensive bibliographic references for them. However, many or most species of mites are now placed in different genera from those in which they were first described, so the original sources on their own are not of much use as a data retrieval system. I could have simply listed each species in the genus in which it is now usually placed, but that seemed to fall short of what I imagined the readers might want. The logical answer was to list each species in its current genus, and identity which author had put it there, by providing bibliographic references to modern redescriptions and revisions. This strategy had the extra advantage of providing access to more modern and widely available taxonomic literature, which is often much more useful for identification than brief, inadequate, unillustrated, and inaccessible original descriptions.

If the Checklist were capable of providing that sort of information, why not add references to other kinds of useful literature as well? If I were going to the trouble of searching thousands of publications to locate literature on the Australian mites, why not make the results available for use by others? The result is a list of the known Australian mites, as complete as I can make it, with species sorted into what I hope is a reasonably acceptable classification of genera and families, and with bibliographic references to at least some of the modern literature associated with each species.

My intention was always that the Checklist would serve as the starting point for more ambitious and more detailed works, such as revisions and catalogues. During its preparation over the last 10 years, the Checklist has indeed been used as the skeleton for several taxonomic revisions, and I hope it will continue to serve that purpose. It has also formed the starting point for the first of a series of catalogues of the Australian mite fauna (Colloff and Halliday 1998).

The main body of data on identified species of mites is followed by a supplementary list of the mites that have been identified only to genus or family level. I hope that future revisions will incorporate these specimens and place them in described species, so the list of partly identified taxa in will gradually shrink.

There is an element of positive feedback in the relationship between the Checklist and the other publications that grow from it - the Checklist provides a starting point for a revision, and the results of the revision in turn guide the process of updating the Checklist. Although the Checklist is now published in hard-copy form, the electronic files on which it was based will live on, and will be continuously updated, expanded, and corrected as more research results become available. There are many thousands of species of mites in Australia still awaiting description, and many of those that have already been described are in need of re-examination and revised taxonomic placement. The process of maintaining the database to keep up with these changes will continue as long as I or my successors have the necessary resources and energy.

MITES OF AUSTRALIA

A Checklist and Bibliography

Contents

Foreword

Abstract

Introduction

Order Acariformes, Suborder Astigmata

Order Acariformes, Suborder Oribatida

Order Acariformes, Suborder Prostigmata

Order Parasitiformes, Suborder Holothyrida

Order Parasitiformes, Suborder Ixodida

Order Parasitiformes, Suborder Mesostigmata

Incompletely identified species

Notes

Bibliography

Index

ABSTRACT

This Checklist provides a list of the names of all 2620 described species of mites that are known to occur ill Australia. All species are placed in the most appropriate genus and family, as far as they can be determined from the literature. In cases in which it is not clear where a species should be placed, it is listed in the genus in which it was placed in the most recently published taxonomic work - there are no species incertae sedis.

The bibliographic reference is given for the original description of every species, genus and family of Australian mites. For every species, bibliographic references are also given for subsequent literature on its taxonomy, nomenclature, and systematics in the broad sense, wherever they are available. For important pest species, references are also provided to papers on their economic importance and other aspects of their biology. The resulting bibliography includes over 2500 books and papers, almost all of which have been examined directly.

The list is intended to provide a taxonomic placement for every name that has ever been applied to an Australian species of mite, including misidentifications, synonyms, and species incorrectly recorded from Australia.

The Checklist includes only names that have been used in the published literature; no new information has been obtained from the examination of specimens. It does not make any new taxonomic decisions or re-arrangements, but instead brings together a summary of published information on Australian mites as at 31/12/1997. Identifications and synonymies are taken directly from publications, and are assumed to be correct unless there is published evidence to the contrary. A complete index of all these names is provided, including mis-spellings and misidentifications.

In a supplementary section, references are given to the literature on mites that have been only partly identified, either to the genus or family level. A further supplement includes explanatory notes on difficult taxonomic or nomenclatural problems that require clarification, and identifies situations in which further research is needed to resolve taxonomic problems.

Readers are asked to report errors and omissions to the author, so the electronic database on which the Checklist was based can be corrected and kept up-to-date.

R. B. Halliday

CSIRO Entomology

GPO Box 1700

Canberra ACT 2601

Australia

[e-mail]

INTRODUCTION

I feel the need to begin this work with a confession. The motivation for producing a checklist of the mites of Australia was purely selfish. Sometime in 1988 I was writing the introduction to a paper that was to have reported the first Australian records of 3 families of Mesostigmata (Podocinidae, Veigaiidae, Parholaspididae). I found myself writing words to the effect that ‘This is the first time these families have been recorded from this country’.

I stopped and asked myself ‘How do I know this is true?’. I was forced to admit that I did not know enough about the Australian mite fauna to be able to make this statement with any confidence. Instead, I abandoned the paper and turned my attention to making myself familiar with the work of previous Australian acarologists. My work on these few families did eventually appear (Halliday 1990c, 1990d, 1995), but in a form that was very different from what I had anticipated.

So with that background in mind, the purposes of this work are simple and explicit:

To provide a list of the names of all species of mites recorded from Australia in published literature.

To place these species in the currently appropriate genera and families.

To provide a bibliography of the literature associated with these species.

To maintain all this information in a series of accessible computer files that can be updated at any time.

This information is intended to provide a starting point for systematists attempting taxonomic work on any part of the Australian mite fauna, such as family-level revisions. This process has already been operating in an informal way for several years.

The contents of the current work may be summarised under headings suggested by the four main words in the title:

Checklist

The subject matter of this work is names and literature, not species or specimens. No information will be given on the origin or lodgement of types or other specimens, or any aspects of the biology of the species. This information can be obtained from the references listed. No types (or any other specimens) have been examined, and no new taxonomic decisions have been made. I have assumed that the identification of specimens in published work is accurate unless there is published evidence to the contrary. No attempt is made to give comprehensive synonymies at any level. These are left to the authors of revisions, either past or future. Synonyms are included only if they have Australian relevance, or if they are particularly instructive in some way. Published synonymies are assumed to be accurate unless there is published evidence to the contrary.

The style and layout of checklist entries are best explained by the use of a few examples.

The valid name of each family is given in bold face, followed by a citation of the work in which the family was described. Early works were often very loose in providing descriptions of family-group taxa, so it would be more precise to say that the work cited is the work in which the current name was first used as a family-group name in the nomen-clatural sense. These names were sometimes established at the family level in the modern form (i.e. -idae), but also as subfamily (-inae) or tribe (-ini), or in older works, in forms that would not now be accepted (e.g. -ides or others). These variant forms of the name are listed under the valid family name, indented. Junior synonyms of the family name are then listed if required, also indented to the same degree. An example is:

TETRANYCHIDAE Donnadieu, 1876

TETRANYCIDES Donnadieu, 1876

This means that Donnadieu (1876) first used the name Tetranycides to refer to a family-level taxon, and that this name is now used as the name of a family, in the modern form Tetranychidae. The family Acaridae illustrates some other problems that arise with names at the family level:

ACARIDAE Latreille, 1802

ACARlDIAE Latreille, 1802

TYROPHAGIDAE Oudemans, 1924d

TYROGLPHIDAE Donnadieu, 1868

TYROGLYPHIENS Donnadieu, 1868

Latreille (1802) first used the name Acaridiae as the name of a family-level taxon. This name is now used in the modern form Acaridae as the name of a family. Oudemans (1924d) described the family Tyrophagidae, which is now considered to be a junior synonym of Acaridae. Donnadieu (1868) introduced the term Tyroglyphicns as the name of a family-level taxon. This has been converted into the modern form Tyroglyphidae, which is in turn considered to be a synonym of Acaridae.

AEROGLYPHIDAE Zachvatkin, 1941

AEROGLYPHINAE Zachvatkin, 1941

This entry means that Zachvatkin (1941) described and named the subfamily Aeroglyphinae, and that this taxon has subsequently been elevated to family level. It does not mean that all the genera listed belong to the subfamily Aeroglyphinae; a subfamily classification is not used. Instead it is simply a nomenclatural convention to show that the family-group name Aeroglyphidae first appeared in the form Aeroglyphinae.

Genera are then listed in alphabetical order within each family. Once again the currently accepted valid name is given at the start of each genus, with a citation of the work in which it was described. This name is then followed by variant forms of the name if any, and reference to the name in its original status, for example, as a subgenus. These are further followed by genus-level junior synonyms if any.

Acarus Linnaeus, 1758

Tyroglyphus Latreille, 1796

Aleurobius Canestrini, 1888

This entry means that the genera Tyroglyphus Latreille 1796 and Aleurobius Canestrini 1888 are now considered to be junior synonyms of Acarus Linnaeus 1758.

Sancassania Oudemans, 1916a

Caloglyphus Berlese, 1923

Tyroglyphus (Caloglyphus) Berlese, 1923

This entry means that Oudemans (1916a) described and named the genus Sancassania, and Berlese (1923) then described the subgenus Tyroglyphus (Caloglyphus). Caloglyphus is now considered to be a genus, but is a junior synonym of Sancassania.

For each species level record, the valid species name is followed by a citation of the bibliographic work in which it was first described, and then by the name of the genus into which the species was originally placed by the author of the work cited, in parentheses. Subsequent references to the species concerned are listed under the species heading, indented, with the species name first, followed by a colon, a bibliographic reference to a publication, and the name of the genus in which the species was placed in that publication.

Subspecies and varieties are shown included within the species to which they belong, and are labelled (var) or (ssp) as appropriate. This is not meant to imply that they are synonymous with the nominotypical subspecies. If a variety or subspecies was originally described in a different species to the one where it is now placed, its original species placement is also given.

Acarus Linnaeus, 1758

Tyroglyphus Latreille, 1796

queenslandiae (Canestrini, 1884c) (Tyroglyphus)

queenslandiae: Canestrini and Kramer, 1899 (Tyroglyphus)

queenslandiae: Michael, 1903 (Tyroglyphus)

queenslandicus: Rainbow, 1906 (Tyroglyphus) {sic}

queenslandiae: Womersley, 1941a (Tyroglyphus)

Canestrini (1884c) described the species queenslandiae, and placed it in the genus Tyroglyphus. Canestrini and Kramer (1899), Michael (1903) and Womersley (1941a) subsequently made reference to this species, and also placed it in the genus Tyyoglyphus. Rainbow (1906) referred to this species, but incorrectly spelled its name queenslandicus. The genus Tyroglyphus is now considered to be a junior synonym of Acarus, and since the species queenslandiae is now placed in a genus other than that in which it was originally described, Canestrini’s name is given in parentheses.

The Checklist entry for the common flour mite Acarus siro reads, in part:

Acarus Linnaeus, 1758

Tyroglyphus Latreille, 1796

Aleurobius Canestrini, 1888

siro Linnaeus, 1758 (Acarus)

farinae Canestrini, 1888 (Aleurobius)

sira: Michael, 1903 (Tyroglyphus)

farinae: Rainbow, 1906 (Aleurobius)

farinae: Womersley, 1941a (Tyroglyphus)

farinae: Rayment, 1954 (Tyroglyphus)

sira: Domrow and Smith, 1956 (Acarus)

sira: Hughes, 1961 (Acarus)

The species siro was described by Linnaeus (1758), in the genus Acarus. Since the species is still placed in the genus Acarus, Linnaeus’ name is not enclosed in parentheses. Canestrini (1888) described the species farinae, in the genus Aleurobius. The genus Aleurabius is now considered to be a junior synonym of Acarus as described above. The species farinae is considered to be a junior synonym of siro, so it is listed as indented under the name siro, without a colon. Michael (1903) subsequently referred to the species siro, but placed it in the genus Tyroglyphus. Rainbow (1906) referred to this species by the name Aleurobius farinae, Womersley (1941a) and Rayment (1954) referred to it as Tyroglyphus farinae, and Domrow and Smith (1956) and Hughes (1961) referred to it as Acarussiro. All these later bibliographic references show the species name followed by a colon, to signify that they are not new names. The colon may be translated into words as ‘as used by ... ’, or ‘in the sense of...’ the author concerned.

Note that in this case Womersley (194la) and Rayment (1954) were correct in identifying their specimens as belonging to the species farinae, but were not aware that farinae was a junior synonym of siro, or did not agree that it was a synonym. A different situation is illustrated by the species Cosmoglyphus oudemansi.

Cosmoglyphus Oudemans, 1932a

oudemansi Zachvatkin, 1937 (Cosmoglyphus)

mycophagus: Womersley, 1941a (Caloglyphus)

krameri: Hughes, 1961 (Caloglyphus)

krameri: Champ, 1965 (Caloglyphus)

krameri: Champ, 1966 (Caloglyphus)

oudemansi: Samsinak, 1966 (Cosmoglyphus)

oudemansi: Hughes, 1976 (Caloglyphus)

oudemansi: Mubarak and Haq, 1989 (Caloglyphus)

The species oudemansi was described by Zachvatkin (1937), and placed by him in the genus Cosmoglyphus. Womersley (1941a) examined specimens that he identified as Caloglyphus mycophagus, and Hughes (1961) and Champ (1965, 1966) examined specimens that they identified as Caloglyphus kramm. These identifications were subsequently shown to be incorrect, and to actually be specimens of Cosmoglyphus oudemansi. Note that this does not imply that the species mycophagus or krameri are synonyms of oudemansi - only the specimens examined by Womersley and Champ, since their usages of the names are followed by a colon.

A few abbreviations and annotations are included in the Checklist to describe special or unusual circumstances:

IRA means that this entry incorrectly records the species from Australia. These records are of two kinds; misidentifications of Australian specimens, and incorrect locality data.

NPA means not present in Australia, but incorrectly recorded from Australia in another entry.

QI means intercepted in quarantine, otherwise unknown.

nomen nudum is a nomenclatural term meaning that the species name was used in the paper cited, but without a description. This is usually followed by the inscription NOTE, referring to a more complete explanation (see below).

The inscription sic means there was some error in the spelling of the species name in the publication cited, but the incorrect spelling is here reproduced verbatim. In these cases the correct spelling is used in the heading of the species.

NOTE means that there is some taxonomic or nomenclatural complication involving a particular species, which is explained more fully in the NOTES section following the main Checklist.

There is no section containing species or other taxa of uncertain status or taxonomic position (‘incertae sedis’). I have placed every taxon in the classification to the best of my ability. This includes cases in which, for example, the placement of a species in a genus is obviously wrong. In these cases, species are listed in the genus in which they were placed in the most recent taxonomic work in which they appear. I have refrained from taking action to correct these placements because that would oblige me to make taxonomic decisions that would not be possible without examining types. Also, a policy of listing some species as incertae sedis would have forced me to decide which species are incertae sedis and which are not. I may have been able to make this distinction in the families of Mesostigmata in which I have personal research experience, but I am certainly not able to do so in all mite groups. Wherever possible I have drawn attention to these cases in explanatory notes. I ask colleagues to forgive me for some of the uncomfortable placements that result from this policy. My intention was to draw attention to the existence of these names, in the hope that subsequent revisers of the genera concerned will be encouraged to take some decisive action to resolve the ambiguities.

Apart from forming the basis of taxonomic revisions, this Checklist is also intended to be the starting point for future catalogues of the Australian mite fauna. These will be more comprehensive works that give, in addition to the information provided here, data on the biology and distribution of the species, their hosts, comprehensive synonymy, the nature and location of types, and taxonomic decisions based on the examination of those types. The first of these catalogues has been published as a companion volume to this Checklist (Colloff and Halliday, 1998). The Catalogue is more detailed than the Checklist in that it includes information obtained from unpublished sources and from specimens in collections, as well as detailed collecting records, some of which are new. It also covers a larger geographic area, including the oceanic and Antarctic territories. Another important difference is that the Catalogue includes some new taxonomic rearrangements, and some new names. For the purpose of nomenclatural priority, the Catalogue (Colloff and Halliday, 1998) was published before the current Checklist.

The main list of species in this Checklist is supplemented by a section containing records of mites identified only to the genus or family level. The main purpose of this section is to draw attention to these records so that authors of subsequent revisions can identify potential sources of specimens, and to (tentatively) record the occurrence of some genera and families in Australia that are not represented by identified species. Users of the checklist must therefore search this list as well as the main entry to obtain a complete picture of the Australian fauna of a family or genus. I would emphasise that I have not verified the data presented in this extra list; I have merely reported the records as they are published. This information is sometimes based on authoritative identifications by taxonomic specialists, sometimes not, and so cannot necessarily be accepted as reliable. For this reason, I have not provided full bibliographic detail for the genera that appear here without appearing in the main Checklist, and I have not attempted to resolve any taxonomic or nomenclatural problems that might be involved. I leave these tasks to be carried out in the future, when the specimens have been re-examined and incorporated into formal taxonomic works.

At a still higher level, there are many examples of Australian mites identified at levels above family, for example in ecological works that identify mites only to orders. These are disregarded.

Bibliography

Each species heading is followed by references to subsequent literature. The works cited are of several kinds. Literature cited for a species described from Australia includes the paper in which the species was described, subsequent papers dealing with its occurrence in Australia, and major taxonomic treatments of the species originating from overseas (if any).

Literature cited for a species described from elsewhere includes the paper in which the species was described, regardless of its country of origin, at least one paper dealing with the occurrence of the species in Australia (more than one if possible), and some reference to literature on its taxonomy and biology, whatever its origin.

The amount of literature cited will inevitably vary from species to species. The number of papers cited for each species is enough to outline its nomenclatural history and show significant subsequent references. In the case of species that have both a complex synonymy and an extensive literature, some selection has been made.

The bibliography does not pretend to be exhaustive. Modern and more substantial works are preferred over older and slighter works. In general terms I have attempted to provide a list of publications on each species that includes the sorts of information that would be useful to people working on Its taxonomy, economic importance, general biology, and systematics in the broad sense. The coverage is inevitably uneven, for a variety of reasons. The literature for an important pest or beneficial species may include papers on its life cycle and biology, economic Importance, and control.

I have made a determined effort to derive data from original publications in every case, not relying on secondary sources. This policy was motivated by the occurrence of errors that are propagated by subsequent authors. Any publications that I have not seen personally are identified in the reference list. It is ironic that this work is itself a secondary source, and any errors I have made may be propagated by subsequent authors. I have made rigorous efforts to minimise the occurrence of such errors but some have no doubt escaped my attention. I would be very grateful to have errors and omissions brought to my attention.

When the search for new literature was closed on December 31, 1997, the bibliography contained 2620 references. I am well aware of many relevant publications that were in preparation or in press at that time, or were actually published before the end of 1997 but had not yet reached my desk. These are not included in this printed version, but will be incorporated. into the electronic database as they appear, and Will be made available in future updates.

Mites

The higher classification of the mites used in this work is as follows.

ORDER ACARIFORMES

SUBORDER ASTIGMATA

SUBORDER ORIBATIDA

SUBORDER PROSTIGMATA

ORDER OPILIOACARIFORMES

ORDER PARASITIFORMES

SUBORDER HOLOTHYRIDA

SUBORDER IXODIDA

SUBORDER MESOSTIGMATA

I fully appreciate that there are several other competing systems of higher classification of the mites, both in substance and in names. I also appreciate that the higher classification of the mites is going through a period of review and revision, and that some of the taxa used here may not be recognised in a few years’ time. I would only repeat that this is not a taxonomic work, and does not presume to make any judgements about higher classification. I have used this arrangement purely because it is simple and expedient, and has a history of widespread use.

No attempt is made to use a phylogenetic arrangement or any other type of systematic organisation. Families within suborders are simply arranged in alphabetical order. This rule is consistent with the primary objective of this work, which is to provide an indexed bibliography of the Australian fauna, while making as few taxonomic judgements as possible. This policy inevitably results in the juxtaposition of families that are distantly related, but the alternative was not considered practicable, especially in the light of the current re-thinking of the higher classification of some important mite groups. Subfamily, tribe, subgenus and species-group classifications are disregarded, mainly because they are not universally available.

Australia

The geographical area covered includes mainland Australia, Tasmania, and the in-shore continental islands inside the 200m contour of ocean depth. The Islands of Bass Strait are included, as are the islands of the Great Barrier Reef.

The area covered also includes the Torres Strait Islands south of 10 degrees south latitude. This does not correspond to the political border of Australia, which approaches very close to the southern coast of Papua New Guinea. It excludes the islands of Boigu, Dauan, and Saibai, which are politically part of Australia, but are only a few kilometres off the Papua New Guinea coast. This issue only arises in the case of one species, Varroa jacobsoni Oudemans, which occurs on Dauan and Saibai but not on the Australian mainland or the islands south of 10 degrees south latitude.

The offshore oceanic territories are also excluded (that is, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Christmas Island, Norfolk Island, Lord Howe Island, the sub-Antarctic islands, and the Australian Antarctic Territory), despite the fact that these are under the political administration of Australia. It should also be noted that the term ‘Australia’ has sometimes been used in the literature in a loose sense that roughly approximates to the Australian biogeographic realm. It sometimes includes New Caledonia, Papua New Guinea, Irian Jaya, New Zealand, and some of the other islands of the Pacific Ocean, all of which are excluded from the present survey.

Sources

The last attempt to compile a list of this sort was that of Rainbow (1906), who listed 102 species of mites known to occur in Australia at that time. Over half of these (54) were parasites of vertebrates, either ticks or feather mites. Interest in parasitic species has continued to dominate acarology in Australia, as it has elsewhere, but more recently the study of these species has been supplemented by work on a growing variety of other groups.

The historical development of the science in this country has been reviewed by Southcott (1982a), and his excellent contribution was one of the most valuable sources of information for the present work. Other important sources were Domrow’s recent catalogues of the vertebrate parasites (Domrow, 1988b, 1991, 1992, Domrow and Lester, 1985), Roberts’ (1970) review of the ticks, Southcott’s (1964) bibliography of the works of H. Womersley, and D. Cook’s massive contribution to the water mites (1986).

Anthony Musgrave is well remembered in Australian entomology for (among other things), his Bibliography of Australian Entomology (1932). Musgrave also prepared a card-index catalogue of the Arachnida of Australia, and a typed checklist of the mites, which remained unpublished (closed in about 1955). This material was kindly loaned to me by the Arachnida section of the Australian Museum, Sydney, and formed an extremely valuable means of gaining access to the older literature.

Since this work is essentially the result of a literature search, it is worth giving some account of the literature that was available to me. In the search for records of Australian mites, I searched every paper in every volume of the international acarological journals Acarologia, International Journal of Acarology, Experimental and Applied Acarology, Indian Journal of Acarology, Acarina, Systematic and Applied Acarology, and Acarologie; Schriftenheihe für Vergleichende Milben-kunde. I searched the literature on Australian entomology in Australian Journal of Zoology, Australian Journal of Zoology (Supplementary Series), Invertebrate Taxonomy, Journal of the Australian Entomological Society (later re-named Australian Journal of Entomology), and Australian Entomological Magazine (later re-named Australian Entomologist), all the Proceedings of the International Congresses of Acarology, and the complete published works of key authors H. Womersley, R. V. Southcott, D. C. Lee, R. Domrow, E. Schicha, F. H. S. Roberts, M. M. H. Wallace, and A. Berlese, and the many thousands of books and papers in the library of the acarology laboratory of the Australian National Insect Collection.

PhD and other theses are a type of literature that offers special challenges to the bibliographer. Any new taxonomic names published only in a thesis are, of course, explicitly excluded from availability by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. On the other hand, there are undoubtedly many theses that contain valuable biological information about Australian mites, taxonomic decisions and re-arrangements, and records of the occurrence of species that have not appeared in the formal literature. I have made use of some theses that came to hand in one way or another, but I have certainly overlooked others. I mean no disrespect to the authors of these theses; my failure to use them is usually just a reflection of the fact that I was not aware of their existence.

These sources were supplemented by reference to Zoological Record and other indexing sources such as Entomology Abstracts. My use of these latter sources was extensive but did not, I regret, include a comprehensive search of every reference in every issue. The resulting list is as complete as I can make it with the available resources. Nevertheless it is inevitable that I have overlooked some species. I would be most grateful if users of this list would point out to me the errors and omissions so I can correct them. It is also inevitable that in many thousands of key strokes I have introduced some typographical errors of my own, and once again, I would welcome the opportunity to correct these once they are brought to my attention.

The Australian Mite Fauna

The compilation of this Checklist allows an examination of the state of knowledge of the mite fauna of Australia. The known fauna now comprises 2,700 described species in 240 families (Astigmata 330, Oribatida 330, Prostigmata 1270, Ixodida 80, Holothyrida 3, Mesostigmata 675). The biggest families include the Atopomelidae (98 species), Steganacaridae (63), Eriophyidae (49), Trombiculidae (114), Tetranychidae (54), Erythraeidae (102), Ixodidae (68), Laelapidae (147), Phytoseiidae (109) and Rhinonyssidae (90). These 10 families include a total of 894 species, almost one-third of the total fauna. The major factor responsible for the dominance of these families is the study of parasites of vertebrates (Atopomelidae, Trombiculidae, Ixodidae, Laelapidae, Rhinonyssidae), invertebrates (Erythraeidae) and plants (Eriophyidae, Tetranychidae). Their importance arises both from the economic significance of these groups and their association with distinctive elements of the native fauna and flora. Further dramatic growth in the known fauna may be expected in groups that have been relatively neglected, including the Eriophyidae, feather mites, Halacaridae, and Uropodina.

As described above, the mites are usually classified into two Orders, the Acariformes and the Parasitiformes. Each Order is subdivided into Suborders, Cohorts, Superfamilies, and families. I will not present a detailed analysis of this hierarchy here. Instead I would refer readers to Krantz (1978), Evans (1996) and the relevant sections in Parker (1982) for further detail. It is useful however, to use elements of this classification as a framework for a brief description of the biology and composition of the Australian mite fauna, and to identify some priorities for future research in systematics.

The Order Acariformes is here divided into the suborders Astigmata, Oribatida, and Prostigmata.

The suborder Astigmata may for convenience be divided into the Acaridia and the Psoroptidia, although these probably do not correspond to monophyletic taxonomic groups. The Acaridia is a group of approximately 23 families of saprophytic and scavenger species that can roughly be described as free-living Astigmata. It includes the common cheese mites and flour mites, and other pests of stored food. Dominant families are the Acaridae, Glycyphagidae, Chortoglyphidae, and Carpoglyphidae (Hughes 1976). Many species are free-living, but others occur in habitats such as the nests and burrows of birds, mammals and insects. Many species have a specialised non-feeding phoretic morph (hypopus) that is found attached to the body of its host. These phoretic instars are common on insects and mammals that occur in the same habitats as the mites. Many species are cosmopolitan and associated with humans and their houses, but the Australian fauna also contains distinctive groups associated with endemic mammals and insects. The Australian fauna includes about 50 known species in 15 families, but this group has never been systematically studied here, and certainly contains hundreds of species. The USSR fauna comprised over 200 species when it was surveyed 50 years ago (Zachvatkin 1941).

The Psoroptidia is a group of Astigmatid mites that includes about 17 families in the superfamilies Psoroptoidea and Pyroglyphoidea, which represent varying stages in the development of parasitism on vertebrate hosts. This group includes the medically important house dust mites (Pyroglyphidae), and many species of parasites that occur in the fur and skin of mammals (Listrophoridae, Atopomelidae, Chirodiscidae). It includes the species responsible for scabies of man and animals (Sarcoptidae), and other livestock parasites such as the Knemidokoptidae, skin parasites of birds. The Australian fauna of parasitic Astigmata has recently been catalogued at 204 species (Domrow 1992), but apart from a handful of medically important species, they have not been systematically studied. Our fauna contains many distinctive genera and species that have specific associations with marsupials.

The Psoroptidia also includes about 25 families of feather mites, which are ectoparasites of birds. Only about 25 species in 8 families are known from Australia (Pterolichidae, Freyanidae, Proctophyllodidae, Trouessartiidae, Gabuciniidae, Turbinoptidae, Dermoglyphidae, Syringobiidae), but overseas experience suggests that every species of bird has at least one species-specific feather mite (Gaud and Atyeo 1996), so the number of Australian feather mites must exceed 500 species. The feather mites of Australia have never been studied except in a sporadic way. Hypotheses about the phylogeny of the Australian birds could be tested by examining the co-evolutionary patterns among their parasites.

The world fauna of Oribatida (=Cryptostigmata) includes about 150 families and thousands of species. Virtually all are saprophytic, some feed on fungi, and a small number on lichens and higher plant material. In this role they are important in the processing of plant material for return to the soil. Some species are of economic importance as intermediate vectors for livestock tapeworms. Oribatids are the most abundant and diverse group of mites in forest leaf litter. The known Australian fauna includes just over 300 species in 45 families, the biggest of which are the Steganacaridae, Brachychthoniidae, Basilobelbidae, Oppidae, and Pedrocortesellidae. Most of the known Australian species have been described in the last 20 years (e.g. Niedbala and Colloff 1997). The Australian National Insect Collection and other public collections contain many thousands of specimens belonging to hundreds of undescribed species.

The Suborder Prostigmata is very large and diverse group about which generalisation is impossible. Parasitism on vertebrates has evolved many times in diverse groups of Prostigmata. The most important of these is the chiggers (family Trombiculidae). In addition to the chiggers, the known Australian fauna includes a total of at least 120 parasitic species in other families of Prostigmata. These non-chigger parasites have recently been catalogued (Domrow 1991), but many questions remain, and there is no current research on these groups. Other Prostigmata are plant parasites, predators, saprophytes, and fungivores. For the sake of convenience the Prostigmata may be sorted into 6 cohorts, although the arrangement and names of these groups has not achieved stability.

The Cohort Anystina includes 8 families of predators, containing about 150 species world-wide, plus some parasites. Some of the predators, for example in the family Anystidae, are potentially beneficial in the biological control of pest mites and insects (Otto 1992). Only a handful of Australian species have been described and most species are unidentifiable.

The Cohort Eleutherengona includes the Tetranychidae, or spider mites, such as the common two-spotted spider mite. This is a group of very important plant pests, which includes 900 species world-wide. Only about 50 are known from Australia (Gutierrez and Schicha 1983). The superfamily Tetranychoidea also includes two other important families of plant parasites, the false spider mites or Tenuipalpidae, and the spectacular Tuckerellidae. The Australian fauna has been almost totally neglected, especially those species that are associated with native plants. The superfamily Eriophyoidea also comprises 3 families of plant parasites, commonly known as rust mites and gall mites (Eriophyidae, Phytoptidae, Diptilomiopidae). Over 2000 species are known world-wide, but fewer than 50 species are known from Australia. They show a high degree of host plant specificity, suggesting that there could be several thousand species in Australia. Many are economically important plant pests, but others have been used successfully for the biological control of weeds (Amrine and Stasny 1994; Lindquist et al. 1996). The Eleuthrengona also includes about 18 other families, about half of which have been recorded in Australia, but never seriously studied. They include parasites of vertebrates, plant parasites, and beneficial predatory species in families such as the Cheyletidae, Stigmaeidae, Camerobiidae, and Caligonellidae.

The Cohort Endeostigmata comprises 9 families of soil and litter mites, 3 of which have been recorded from Australia (Nanorchestidae, Bimichaelidae, Terpnacaridae). They are probably mostly predatory. Over 100 species have been described world-wide, but the Australian fauna is almost totally unknown. The Nanorchestidae appear to be abundant and diverse in the Australian deserts, but not one species has been described from that habitat.

The Cohort Eupodina is a group of 11 families world-wide. The Australian fauna of some families is well known, but most have not been studied. The world fauna of Halacaridae includes about 1000 species of marine and intertidal mites, of which only about 60 species are known from Australia. This level of knowledge is probably typical for the whole group. The family Penthaleidae contains some economically important pasture pests, such as the redlegged earth mite and the blue oat mite, as well as other species that appear to be harmless components of the native fauna. The superfamily Bdelloidea includes some economically important beneficial predators (Wallace and Mahon 1972, 1976).

The intriguing Cohort Heterostigmata includes 12 families of small soil mites, many of them with specialised phoretic ins tars and close associations with insects. It includes some important pest species of plant parasites in the family Tarsonemidae, which have never been studied in Australia, as well as soil mites in the families Pygmephoridae, Scutacaridae, and Microdispidae. It also includes the straw itch mites of the family Pyemotidae, which attack humans and cause serious skin disease, but even these cannot be identified in Australia with any confidence. The world fauna includes over 500 described species, but fewer than 25 are known from Australia.

The biggest Prostigmatid Cohort is the Parasitengona. The best known family of Paras it eng on a is the Trombiculidae or chiggers. The Australian fauna of this family includes 107 species of parasites of vertebrates, including native species of marsupials and rodents. They have recently been catalogued (Domrow and Lester 1985), but almost all available information refers to the parasitic larval stage, and identification of adults is almost completely impossible, as the required research has never been attempted in Australia. Some are medically important disease vectors implicated in the transmission of diseases including scrub typhus.

This Cohort also includes about 50 families of water mites, whose larvae are parasitic on aquatic insects, and whose adults are free-living aquatic predators. The Australian fauna includes 250 described species, most of which were described since 1985 (Cook 1986). The Parasitengona also includes 10 families that are the terrestrial counterparts of the water mites. The larvae of these are parasitic on terrestrial invertebrates, most notably grasshoppers. Over 100 known species occur in Australia, and hundreds more undescribed species exist in collections. The group certainly includes some economically important beneficial species, such as predators in agricultural systems (Erythraeidae), but these cannot be exploited because most cannot be identified with any confidence. Other important families in this group are the Trombidiidae, Trombellidae, Microtrombidiidae, and Smarididae.

The Order Parasitiformes is here considered to be subdivided into three suborders.

Suborder Holothyrida includes 3 families of large distinctive predators with a typical Gondwanan southern hemisphere distribution. The total world fauna is fewer than 20 species. The Australian fauna comprises only 3 known species in a single family (Allothyridae) from rainforest leaf litter, but many other undescribed species exist in collections. Detailed study of the Holothyrida will provide valuable insights into the early evolution of the other Parasitiform groups.

The suborder Ixodida comprises 3 families of ticks, 2 of which occur in Australia (Argasidae, Ixodidae). Fewer than 100 species are known from Australia. These are well known and were monographed in 1970 (Roberts 1970), but very little extra has been learned since then, except on a few species of medical or veterinary importance. The Australian fauna includes some distinctive species that are parasitic on marsupials and native lizards. Some are serious health threats to humans and livestock, especially the paralysis tick Ixodes holocyclus and the cattle tick Boophilus microplus.

The remaining Parasitiformes are grouped in the Suborder Mesostigmata, which can for convenience be divided into the Monogynaspida, the Uropodina, and the Trigynaspida.

The Monogynaspid Mesostigmata includes about 50 families world-wide. Most are free-living predators, including the very valuable arboreal predators in the family Phytoseiidae, which have been used extensively in biological control of plant pests such as spider mites (see Schicha 1987). Most families are common in soil and litter, and some of these are phoretic on insects such as dung beetles. A few of the Australian families of free-living species are well known, but others have been completely neglected. About 6 families are wholly or partly parasitic on vertebrates, and 217 parasitic species in these families have recently been catalogued for the Australian fauna (Domrow 1988b). The non-parasitic species are much less studied, with at least 300 known species and many times that number undescribed. The Ologamasidae are very abundant and diverse in litter and soil habitats (Lee 1970, 1973a), the Macrochelidae are abundant in decomposing organic matter such as dung and compost, and other conspicuous families are the Ascidae, Laelapidae, Leptolaelapidae, and Parasitidae.

The Uropodina comprises about 7 families of fungivores and nematode predators, which are very abundant and diverse in forest litter. The world fauna includes hundreds of species, but the exact number is difficult to estimate due to the chaotic state of the taxonomy. Most Australian species are here placed in the families Uropodidae, Urodinychidae, Trachyuropodidae, and Trigonuropodidae. The Australian fauna includes about 70 known species, but many times that number of species exist in collections.

The Trigynaspida is group of 25 families, of mostly large mites, which have varying degrees of symbiotic association with soil insects. Some species are phoretic, and others occur in insect nests and burrows. They seem to be especially diverse in association with carabid and passalid beetles. The known Australian fauna is currently 33 species, but no systematic research has been done on them in the last 30 years. The degree of intimacy of their association with insects guarantees that there is a very large endemic fauna. Dominant families in the Australian fauna are the Diarthrophallidae and Fedrizziidae.

It is a sobering experience to attempt to identify some group of Australian mites for which our knowledge is reasonably complete - in which most specimens belong to described species and can be identified using published sources with some degree of confidence. Only the ticks fall into this category, but even there new species are still being described, and using the existing identification keys is a challenge to the non-specialist. Future research in Australian systematic acarology will not be hampered by a lack of opportunities.

Acknowledgements

The approach used is loosely based on the work of Ebbe Nielsen and others, in the Checklist of the Lepidoptera of Australia. Ebbe also generously passed on the benefits of his experience in its production, but I have extensively modified his methods to suit my own tastes. Data were entered into the Checklist using the text editor program TED, which was created by my colleague Mike Dallwitz. From time to time I received support from research assistants, among them Tracy Harwood, Alison Roach and Kathleen Strong, who shared some of the burden of long hours in the library. Many people have examined and used preliminary versions of the Checklist of various families, and I thank those colleagues for their scrutiny. Mike Gray of the Australian Museum, Sydney, generously allowed me to borrow the card index bibliography of Australian Acarina prepared by Anthony Musgrave. I also thank the many colleagues who granted me access to their reprint collections and unpublished bibliographic data sources, and who helped me in the search for old and rare publications.

I am especially grateful to those people who generously gave their time to read and check parts of the Checklist during the final stages of its preparation - in no special order, Dave Walter, Roy Norton, Matt Colloff, Barry OConnor, Tingkui Qin, Tom Atyeo, Jerry Krantz, Frank Radovsky, David Cook, and Evert Lindquist. All remaining errors are, of course, my exclusive responsibility.

Finally, I offer very special thanks to the staff of the CSIRO Black Mountain Library, who cheerfully performed heroic feats in obtaining rare books and obscure journals in response to my endless interlibrary loan requests. It has been a genuine pleasure to work with these people, and this project would not have been possible without their tireless and good-natured support.

ORDER ACARIFORMES

SUBORDER ASTIGMATA

ACARIDAE Latreille, 1802

ACARIDIAE Latreille, 1802

TYROPHAGIDAE Oudemans, 1924d

TYROGLYPHIDAE Donnadieu, 1868

TYROGLYPHIENS Donnadieu, 1868

Acarus Linnaeus, 1758

Tyroglyphus Latreille, 1796

Aleurobius Canestrini, 1888

ananas (Tryon, 1898) (Tyroglyphus)

gracilis Hughes, 1957 (Acarus)

gracilis: Griffiths, 1970 (Acarus)

gracilis: Hughes, 1976 (Acarus)

gracilis: Colloff et al., 1991 (Acarus)

gracilis: Domrow, 1992 (Acarus)

inaequalis (Banks, 1916) (Tyroglyphus)      NOTE

queenslandiae (Canestrini, 1884c) (Tyroglyphus)

queenslandiae: Canestrini and Kramer, 1899 (Tyroglyphus)

queenslandiae: Michael, 1903 (Tyroglyphus)

queenslandicus: Rainbow, 1906 (Tyroglyphus) (sic)

queenslandiae: Womersley, 1941a (Tyroglyphus)

siro Linnaeus, 1758 (Acarus)

farinae Canestrini,1888 (Aleurobius)

siro: Michael, 1903 (Tyroglyphus)

farinae: Rainbow, 1906 (Aleurobius)

farinae: Womersley, 1941a (Tyroglyphus)

farinae: Rayment, 1954 (Tyroglyphus)

siro: Domrow and Smith, 1956 (Acarus)

siro: Hughes, 1961 (Acarus)

siro: Griffiths, 1964 (Acarus)

siro: Champ, 1966 (Acarus)

siro: Griffiths, 1970 (Acarus)

siro: Hughes, 1976 (Acarus)

siro: Southcott, 1976 (Acarus)

siro: Southcott, 1978 (Acarus)

siro: Carne, 1987 (Acarus)

siro: Domrow, 1992 (Acarus)

siro: Naumann, 1993 (Acarus)

Acotyledon Oudemans, 1902g

mykytowyczi Womersley, 1955 (Acotyledon)

mykytowyczi: Domrow, 1992 (Acotyledon)

Australhypopus Fain and Friend, 1984

flagellifer Fain and Friend, 1984 (Australhypopus)

flagellifer: Koch, 1986 (Australhypopus)

Cerophagopsis Zakhvatkin, 1941

trigona (Fain and Heard, 1987) (Cerophagus)

trigona: OConnor, 1992 (Cerophagopsis)

Cosmoglyphus Oudemans, 1932a

angustus Fain and Friend, 1984 (Cosmoglyphus)

angustus (ssp) Fain and Friend, 1984 (Cosmoglyphus)

distinctus (ssp) Fain and Friend, 1984 (Cosmoglyphus)

angustus: Koch, 1986 (Cosmoglyphus)

distinctus (ssp): Koch, 1986 (Cosmoglyphus)

oudemansi Zakhvatkin, 1937 (Cosmoglyphus)

mycophagus: Womersley, 1941a (Caloglyphus)

krameri: Hughes, 1961 (Caloglyphus)

krameri: Champ, 1965 (Caloglyphus)

krameri: Champ, 1966 (Caloglyphus)

oudemansi: Samsinak, 1966 (Cosmoglyphus)

oudemansi: Hughes, 1976 (Caloglyphus)

oudemansi: Mubarak and Haq, 1989 (Caloglyphus)

Ctenocolletacarus Fain, 1984

brevirostris Fain, 1984 (Ctenocolletacarus)

brevirostris: Fain and Houston, 1986 (Ctenocolletacarus)

brevirostris: Koch, 1986 (Ctenocolletacarus)

brevirostris: Houston, 1987 (Ctenocolletacarus)

grandior Fain, 1984 (Ctenocolletacarus)

grandior: Koch, 1986 (Ctenocolletacarus)

grandior: Houston, 1987 (Ctenocolletacarus)

longirostris Fain, 1984 (Ctenocolletacarus)

longirostris: Koch, 1986 (Ctenocolletacarus)

longirostris: Fain and Houston, 1986 (Ctenocolletacarus)

longirostris: Houston, 1987 (Ctenocolletacarus)

Forcellinia Oudemans, 1924b

galleriella Womersley, 1963b (Forcellinia)

galleriella: Fain, 1987a (Forcellinia)

galleriella: Delfinado-Baker and Baker, 1989 (Forcellinia)

galleriella: Delfinado-Baker et al., 1989 (Forcellinia)

Lowryacarus Fain, 1986c

longipes Fain, 1986c (Lowryacarus)

Psyllacarus Fain et al., 1990

subellipticus Fain et al., 1990 (Psyllacarus)

Rhizoglyphus Claparede, 1868

echinopus (Fumouze and Robin, 1868) (Tyroglyphus)      NOTE

echinopus: Michael, 1903 (Rhizoglyphus)

echinopus: Lea, 1908 (Rhizoglyphus)

echinopus: Zakhvatkin, 1941 (Rhizoglyphus)

echinopus: Womersley, 1941a (Rhizoglyphus)

echinopus: Champ, 1965 (Rhizoglyphus)

echinopus: Champ, 1966 (Rhizoglyphus)

echinopus: Eyndhoven, 1968 (Rhizoglyphus)

echinopus: Manson, 1972b (Rhizoglyphus)

hyacinthi: Southcott, 1976 (Rhizoglyphus)

echinopus: Fain, 1977a (Rhizoglyphus)

hyacinthi: Southcott, 1978 (Rhizoglyphus)

echinopus: Meyer, 1981 (Rhizoglyphus)

echinopus: Carne, 1987 (Rhizoglyphus)

echinopus: Fain, 1988 (Rhizoglyphus)

echinopus: Naumann, 1993 (Rhizoglyphus)

robini Claparède, 1869 (Rhizoglyphus)

robini: Zakhvatkin, 1941 (Rhizoglyphus)

echinopus: Hughes, 1961 (Rhizoglyphus)

robini: Eyndhoven, 1968 (Rhizoglyphus)

robini: Manson, 1972b (Rhizoglyphus)

robini: Hughes, 1976 (Rhizoglyphus)

robini: Fain, 1977a (Rhizoglyphus)

robini: Meyer, 1981 (Rhizoglyphus)

robini: Baker, 1983 (Rhizogryphus)

robini: Gerson et al., 1985 (Rhizoglyphus)

robini: Fain, 1988 (Rhizoglyphus)

termitum Womersley, 1941a (Rhizoglyphus)

Sancassania Oudemans, 1916a

Caloglyphus Berlese, 1923

Tyroglyphus (Caloglyphus) Berlese, 1923

berlesei (Michael, 1903) (Tyroglyphus)

berlesei: Womersley, 1941a (Caloglyphus)

berlesei: Zakhvatkin, 1941 (Caloglyphus)

berlesei: Rayment, 1954 (Caloglyphus)

berlesei: Hughes, 1961 (Caloglyphus)

berlesei: Champ, 1966 (Caloglyphus)

berlesei: Hughes, 1976 (Caloglyphus)

berlesei: Barton et al., 1988 (Sancassania)

berlesei: Timms et al., 1982a (Sancassania)

berlesei: Timms et al., 1982b (Sancassania)

berlesei: Domrow, 1992 (Sancassania)

Schwiebea Oudemans, 1916a

similisManson, 1972c (Schwiebia) (sic)

similis: Fain, 1977c (Schwiebea)

Thyreophagus Rondani, 1874

Michaelopus Fain and Johnston, 1974

corticalis (Michael, 1885) (Tyroglyphus)

corticalis: Michael, 1903 (Histiogaster)

corticalis: Zakhvatkin, 1941 (Monieziella)

corticalis: Womersley, 1941a (Thyreophagus)

corticalis: Womersley, 1955 (Thyreophagus)

corticalis: Fain and Johnston, 1974 (Michaelopus)

corticalis: Fain, 1982e (Michaelopus)

corticalis: Domrow, 1992 (Thyreophagus)

entomophagus Laboulbène and Robin, 1862 (Acarus)

entomophagus Laboulbene, 1852 (Acarus) (nomen nudum)

entomophagus: Michael, 1903 (Histiogaster)

entomophagus: Rainbow, 1906 (Tyroglyphus)

entomophagus: Womersley, 1941a (Thyreophagus)

entomophagus: Zakhvatkin, 1941 (Thyreophagus)

entomophagus: Hughes, 1961 (Thyreophagus)

entomophagus: Champ, 1966 (Thyreophagus)

entomophagus: Hughes, 1976 (Thyreophagus)

entomophagus: Fain, 1982e (Thyreophagus)

entomophagus: Carne, 1987 (Thyreophagus)

entomophagus: Domrow, 1992 (Thyreophagus)

entomophagus: Naumann, 1993 (Thyreophagus)

Tyroborus Oudemans, 1924d

houstoniFain, 1986b (Tyroborus)

casei: Houston, 1984 (Tyrolichus)

houstoni: Koch, 1986 (Tyroborus)

Tyrolichus Oudemans, 1924a

Tyroglyphus (Tyrolichus) Oudemans, 1924a

casei Oudemans, 1910b (Tyrolichus)

casei: Zakhvatkin, 1941 (Tyrolichus)

casei: Champ, 1966 (Tyrophagus)

casei: Hughes, 1976 (Tyrolichus)

casei: Carne, 1987 (Tyrolichus)

casei: Naumann, 1993 (Tyrolichus)

Tyrophagus Oudemans, 1924a

Tyroglyphus (Tyrophagus) Oudemans, 1924a

Tyrophagus: ICZN, 1985

longior (Gervais, 1844) (Tyroglyphus)

longior: Canestrini and Kramer, 1899 (Tyroglyphus)

longior: Michael, 1903 (Tyroglyphus)

tenuiclavus Zakhvatkin, 1941 (Tyrophagus)

tenuiclavus: Rayment, 1954 (Tyrofagus) (sic)

longior: Robertson, 1959 (Tyrophagus)

longior: Hughes, 1961 (Tyrophagus)

longior: Champ, 1966 (Tyrophagus)

longior: Hughes, 1976 (Tyrophagus)

longior: Griffiths, 1979 (Tyrophagus)

longior: Robertson, 1981 (Tyrophagus)

longior: ICZN, 1985 (Tyrophagus)

longior: Carne, 1987 (Tyrophagus)

longior: Naumann, 1993 (Tyrophagus)

perniciosus Zakhvatkin, 1941 (Tyrophagus)

perniciosus: Robertson, 1959 (Tyrophagus)

perniciosus: Hughes, 1976 (Tyrophagus)

perniciosus: Griffiths, 1979 (Tyrophagus)

putrescentiae (Schrank, 1781) (Acarus)

lintneri Osborn, 1893 (Tyroglyphus)

lintneri: Michael, 1903 (Tyroglyphus)

lintneri: Banks, 1906 (Tyroglyphus)

siro: Rainbow, 1906 (Tyroglyphus)

siro: Lea, 1908 (Tyroglyphus)

castellanii (var of longior) (Hirst, 1912b) (Tyroglyphus)

putrescentiae: Oudemans, 1924e (Tyrophagus)

lintneri: Swan, 1937 (Tyroglyphus)

putrescentiae: Womersley, 1941a (Tyrophagus)

lintneri: Zakhvatkin, 1941 (Tyroglyphus)

putrescentiae: Zakhvatkin, 1941 (Tyrophagus)

castellanii (var of longior): Taylor, 1946 (Tyroglyphus)

castellanii: Womersley, 1955 (Tyrophagus)

putrescentiae: Robertson, 1959 (Tyrophagus)

putrescentiae: Hughes, 1961 (Tyrophagus)

putrescentiae: Champ, 1965 (Tyrophagus)

putrescentiae: Champ, 1966 (Tyrophagus)

putrescentiae: Southcott, 1976 (Tyrophagus)

putrescentiae: Hughes, 1976 (Tyrophagus)

putrescentiae: Southcott, 1978 (Tyrophagus)

putrescentiae: Griffiths, 1979 (Tyrophagus)

putrescentiae: Lee and Southcott, 1979 (Tyrophagus)

putrescentiae: Robertson, 1981 (Tyrophagus)

putrescentiae: ICZN, 1985 (Tyrophagus)

putrescentiae: Carne, 1987 (Tyrophagus)

putrescentiae: Stone and Simpson, 1991 (Tyrophagus)

putrescentiae. Terras et al., 1991 (Tyrophagus)

putrescentiae: Domrow, 1992 (Tyrophagus)

putrescentiae: James, 1993 (Tyrophagus)

putrescentiae: Naumann, 1993 (Tyrophagus)

similis Volgin, 1949 (Tyrophagus)

oudemansi Robertson, 1959 (Tyrophagus)

similis: Robertson, 1959 (Tyrophagus)

dimidiatus: Hughes, 1961 (Tyrophagus)

dimidiatus: Champ, 1966 (Tyrophagus)

similis: Hughes, 1976 (Tyrophagus)

similis: Griffiths, 1979 (Tyrophagus)

similis: Lee and Southcott, 1979 (Tyrophagus)

similis: Lee, 1985b (Tyrophagus)

similis: Al-Safadi, 1987 (Tyrophagus)

AEROGLYPHIDAE Zakhvatkin, 1941

AEROGLYPHINAE Zakhvatkin, 1941

Glycycometus Parameswaran Pillai, 1957

Austroglycyphagus Fain and Lowry, 1974

geniculatus (Vi tzth urn, 1919) (Glycyphagus)

geniculatus: Zakhvatkin, 1941 (Glycyphagus)

geniculatus: Fain, 1976c (Glycyphagus)

geniculatus: Fain and Nadchatram, 1980 (A ustroglycyphagus)

geniculatus: Colloff et al., 1991 (A ustroglycyphagus)

troglodytus (Fain and Lowry, 1974) (A ustroglycyphagus)

troglodytus: Fain, 1976c (A ustroglycyphagus)

troglodytus: Fain, 1979c (A ustroglycyphagus)

troglodytus: Lowry, 1980 (A ustroglycyphagus)

troglodytus: Fain and Nadchatram, 1980 (A ustroglycyphagus)

troglodytus: Domrow, 1992 (Glycycometus)

weelawadjiensis (Fain and Lowry, 1974) (A ustroglycyphagus)

weelawadjiensis: Fain, 1976c (A ustroglycyphagus)

weelawadjiensis: Fain, 1979c (A ustroglycyphagus)

weelawadjiensis: Lowry, 1980 (A ustraglycyphagus)

weelawadjiensis: Fain and Nadchatram, 1980 (Austroglycyphagus)

weelawadjiensis: Domrow, 1992 (Glycycometus)

ALLOPTIDAE Gaud, 1957

ALLOPTINAE Gaud, 1957

Brephosceles Hull, 1934

haematopiPeterson, 1971 (Brephosceles)

Microspalax Mégnin and Trouessart, 1884d

ardennae Dubinin, 1949 (Microspalax)

ardennae: Dubinin, 1953 (Microspalax)

ardennae: Atyeo and Gaud, 1991b (Microspalax)

manicata Mégnin and Trouessart, 1884d (Freyana)

manicata: Canestrini and Kramer, 1899 (Freyana)

manicata: Dubinin, 1953 (Microspalax)

Nealloptes Gaud and Mouchet, 1957

corymbophorus (Trouessart and Neumann, 1888) (Alloptes)

corymbophorus: Berlese, 1897 (Alloptes)

corymbophorus: Rainbow, 1906 (Alloptes)

corymbophorus: Gaud, 1982 (Nealloptes)

ANALGIDAE Trouessart and Mégnin, 1884

Analges Nitzsch, 1818