1,720,979 research outputs found
A reappraisal of some basal lineages of the family Macrochelidae, with the description of a new genus (Acarina: Mesostigmata)
No full textEmberson, Rowan M. (2010): A reappraisal of some basal lineages of the family Macrochelidae, with the description of a new genus (Acarina: Mesostigmata). Zootaxa 2501: 37-53, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19583
Biology ofMetaxina ornataBroun (Coleoptera: Metaxinidae), with Notes on Associated Beetle Taxa
No full textJohnson, James B., Emberson, Rowan M., Marris, John M. W. (2008): Biology ofMetaxina ornataBroun (Coleoptera: Metaxinidae), with Notes on Associated Beetle Taxa. The Coleopterists Bulletin 62 (2): 215-219, DOI: 10.1649/1055.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1649/1055.
Dissoloncha Falconer 1923
No full textDissoloncha Falconer, 1923 Macrocheles (Dissoloncha) Falconer, 1923: 151. Type species: Macrocheles superbus Hull, 1918, by original designation and monotypy. Geholaspini with a distally bifid, elongate, triangular epistome (Fig. 1); ventri-anal shield with three pairs of pre-anal setae; inguinal pores on anterior lateral angles of ventri-anal shield (Fig. 2); with two pairs of postepigynal platelets, these sometimes more or less fused to ventri-anal shield; sacculus large, spherical, strongly convoluted (Fig. 3). Males with separate sternogynal and ventri-anal shields; chelicera with short, dorsally directed spermatodactyl; legs II with small spurs on femora and genua, legs IV with spurs on trochanters and femora. Notes. Dissoloncha was redescribed by Hyatt & Emberson (1988) and associated with Geholaspis rather than Macrocheles. The unique spherical sacculus was illustrated by Takaku (1997). The genus needs no further description. It includes a single species distributed in coastal areas throughout the cool temperate regions of the Holarctic (Krantz, 1972; Hyatt & Emberson, 1988; Takaku, 1997). Included species: D. superbus (Hull, 1918)Published as part of Emberson, Rowan M., 2010, A reappraisal of some basal lineages of the family Macrochelidae, with the description of a new genus (Acarina: Mesostigmata), pp. 37-53 in Zootaxa 2501 on page 40, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19583
Reductholaspis Emberson, 2010, new genus
No full textReductholaspis new genus Macrocheles.— Hyatt & Emberson, 1988: 78, pars. Type species: Macrocheles analis Hyatt & Emberson, 1988. Geholaspini with reduced dorsal (Fig 11) and ventral sclerotisation; ventral opisthosomatic sclerotisation limited to an anal shield; chelae elongate, bidentate (Fig. 12); epistome with a narrow, distally bifid median process (Fig. 13); hollow seta of palp tarsus similar in length to surrounding setae. The dorsal shield (Fig. 11) tapers strongly from the shoulders and is mildly hypotrichous for the family, having 27 pairs of pilose setae, instead of the 28 pairs of setae found in most macrochelids. The shields of the ventral surface are weakly sclerotised and reduced in size. The epigynal shield is almost semicircular posteriorly and the epigynal pores are on the unsclerotised membrane. There are two pairs of lightly sclerotised post-epigynal platelets. The opisthogastric sclerotisation is reduced to a small oval anal shield (Fig. 14) without pre-anal setae. The epistome has a dentate anterior margin with a narrow, bifid, median process, which is distally dissected (Fig. 13). Both chelae are bidentate and elongate (Fig. 12), with the fixed chela being 3.5 times as long as its basal width. The corniculi are four times as long as their basal width, and reach the anterior margins of the pedipalpal femora. The external posterior hypostomatic setae h 2 are anterior to internal hypostomatic setae h 3 (Fig. 15). The hollow seta on the external surface of the palp tarsus, which is prominent in most other macrochelids, is no longer than the surrounding setae. Males unknown. Notes. The elongate corniculi and the anterior position of the external posterior hypostomatic setae (h 2) are characters shared by all members of the Geholaspini, and the form of the epistome is almost identical to that found in Longicheles. The elongation of the cheliceral digits, though not their dentition, is another possible apomorphy shared with Longicheles. These characters clearly point to a close relationship of R. analis with the genera of the Geholaspini, rather than the previously suggested placement in the opacus species group of Macrocheles. The reduction in opisthogastric sclerotisation to a simple anal shield is, however, unique in the geholaspine group of genera. In the Macrochelidae, simple anal shields otherwise occur only in Neopodocinum and Lordocheles Krantz, neither of which appears to be closely related to R. analis.Published as part of Emberson, Rowan M., 2010, A reappraisal of some basal lineages of the family Macrochelidae, with the description of a new genus (Acarina: Mesostigmata), pp. 37-53 in Zootaxa 2501 on page 45, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19583
Matrix habitat restoration alters dung beetle species responses across tropical forest edges
No full textExternal threats from agricultural intensification, fire encroachment, species invasion and illegal harvesting present major conservation challenges in isolated tropical forest remnants. These processes can greatly exacerbate the magnitude of edge effects as the degree of patch to matrix contrast increases. Theory suggests that mitigation of these effects should be possible through conservation strategies that remove external threats and restore adjacent matrix structure, but this has not been tested experimentally. In the rapidly-dwindling Afromontane rainforests of Nigeria, where nature reserves have the least protection of all African conservation areas, we created an experimental matrix restoration treatment in which we excluded livestock by fencing, maintained a fire-exclusion break, and passively revegetated a 200 m buffer zone in the surrounding matrix at replicated edges. After three years, dung beetle communities in remnant forests showed a 53% increase in abundance at sites adjacent to the restored matrix. Over 90% of the common dung beetle species differed in the magnitude of their edge responses between forest-to-restored versus forest-to-degraded matrix sites. Moreover, a significant difference in species richness across the forest-to-degraded matrix edge became non-significant following matrix restoration, and there was also a significant decrease in community dissimilarity across the edge gradient in these regenerating sites. Just three years after excluding threatening processes from comparatively small areas of matrix habitat, we found that these efforts not only reduced edge effects, but also (1) enhanced dung beetle populations in the adjacent reserve, (2) led to an increase in dung beetle capture rates in the regenerating matrix, and (3) facilitated re-establishment of species that were absent due to matrix degradation. Therefore, regenerating buffers can substantially increase effective reserve size and restore invertebrate communities in landscape mosaics where remnant habitats are embedded within anthropogenic landscapes. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved
Nothrholaspis Berlese 1918
No full textNothrholaspis Berlese, 1918 Macrocheles (Nothrholaspis) Berlese, 1918: 169. Type species: Holostaspis tridentinus G. & R. Canestrini, 1882 (= Gamasus tardus Koch, 1841), by original designation. Macrocheles (Scleritholaspis) Mašán, 2003: 80. Type species: Gamasus carinatus Koch, 1839, by original designation, new synonymy. Macrocheles carinatus species group.— Hyatt & Emberson, 1988: 90. Medium to large-sized (female dorsal shield 1000–1500 μm in length), heavily sclerotised, litter-dwelling Macrochelini; dorsal setae distally pilose, except for a group of more or less aciculate setae in central region of dorsal shield; three pairs of post-epigynal platelets free in membranous cuticle; males with separate sternogynal and ventri-anal shields; epistome with lateral processes fused basally; dorsal cheliceral seta pectinate laterodistally. The dorsal shield has 28−29 pairs of setae, with J 3 present in addition to J 2 in some species (e. g. N. montanus Willmann). Most dorsal setae are pilose in their distal 1 / 2 to 2 / 3, but a group of more or less simple, aciculate setae are present in the central region of the dorsal shield. These include j 6, z 5, J 2, and J 3, if present; other setae including j 2, j 5, z 1, s 2, r 3, r 4, and J 5 may be simple in some species. The dorsal shield is generally ornamented with reticulate patterns and sometimes with punctate microsculpture, and the posterior and lateral margins are irregularly crenulate or smooth. The ventral shields have simple or pilose setae. The sternal shield has a reticulate-punctate pattern, which is more pronounced and more punctate in the posterior 1 / 3. The metasternal plates are small and oval, and bear the seta and pore. The epigynal shield is generally rounded posteriorly and has a punctate lineal pattern; the associated pores are free on the membrane. The ventri-anal shield is reduced, subtriangular or rounded, with three pairs of pre-anal setae, a punctate lineal pattern and para-anal extensions to the cribrum. There are three pairs of free post-epigynal platelets in the membranous cuticle. The epistomatic lateral processes are fused basally and the stem of the median process is strongly spiculate (Fig. 16). Cheliceral dentition varies from species to species, and the cheliceral dorsal seta is pectinate laterodistally. Leg setation is normal for the family, with both simple and pilose setae. The spermathecal structures are mostly indistinct, but well developed infundibula and tubuli have been illustrated by Athias-Henriot (1968) for N. carinatus (Koch) and N. tardus (Koch). Males have separate sternogynal and ventri-anal shields. The spermatodactyl is short, about half the length of the movable chela; it is strongly tapered and directed posteriodorsally. Femur II is armed with a simple spur and the genu and tibia have small tubercles. Notes. Nothrholaspis is distinguished from Macrocheles by the presence of three pairs of sclerotised postepigynal platelets in the membrane between the epigynal and ventri-anal shields, a feature shared with Macrholaspis and Geotrupacarus but rarely present in Macrocheles, as here restricted. Nothrholaspis is further distinguished from Macrocheles and from Macrholaspis by the distinctive shape of the epistome (Fig. 16), and from Macrocheles by the pectinate cheliceral dorsal seta. Both the shape of the epistome and the cheliceral dorsal setae are similar to those seen in Geotrupacarus. The large size, pattern of pilose and aciculate dorsal setae, litter-dwelling habit, and regular occurrence of males are other characteristic, though non-defining, features of the genus. Hyatt & Emberson (1988) found that the proportion of males in the four species occurring in the British Isles varied from 1.2% (1 out of 83 adults examined) in N. montanus to 37.3% (134 out of 359 adults examined) in N. submotus. Nothrholaspis is a Palaearctic genus with species known from Britain and Ireland to China and Japan (Hyatt & Emberson, 1988; Takaku, 1996; Ma & Liu 2003). Included species: N. banaticus (Iavorschi, 1977), new combination; N. carinatus (Koch, 1839); N. caucasicus (Bregetova & Koroleva, 1960), new combination; N. coenosus (Takaku, 1996), new combination; N. montanus Willmann, 1951; N. shennongjianensis (Ma & Liu, 2003), new combination; N. subcoenosus (Takaku, 1996), new combination; N. submotus (Falconer, 1924), new combination; N. tardus (Koch, 1841) Mašán (2003) proposed the synonymy of Macrocheles biharicus Iavorschi, 1977 and M. margaretae Iavorschi, 1977 with N. montanus Willmann, 1951. His tentatively proposed synonymy of M. banaticus Iavorschi, 1977 with M. tardus (Koch, 1841) is less convincing because of distinct differences in the number and distribution of simple setae in the central region of the dorsal shield. In the absence of known original material of M. banaticus, this synonymy is not followed here.Published as part of Emberson, Rowan M., 2010, A reappraisal of some basal lineages of the family Macrochelidae, with the description of a new genus (Acarina: Mesostigmata), pp. 37-53 in Zootaxa 2501 on pages 47-48, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19583
The role of species traits in mediating functional recovery during matrix restoration.
No full textReversing anthropogenic impacts on habitat structure is frequently successful through restoration, but the mechanisms linking habitat change, community reassembly and recovery of ecosystem functioning remain unknown. We test for the influence of edge effects and matrix habitat restoration on the reassembly of dung beetle communities and consequent recovery of dung removal rates across tropical forest edges. Using path modelling, we disentangle the relative importance of community-weighted trait means and functional trait dispersion from total biomass effects on rates of dung removal. Community trait composition and biomass of dung beetle communities responded divergently to edge effects and matrix habitat restoration, yielding opposing effects on dung removal. However, functional dispersion--used in this study as a measure of niche complementarity--did not explain a significant amount of variation in dung removal rates across habitat edges. Instead, we demonstrate that the path to functional recovery of these altered ecosystems depends on the trait-mean composition of reassembling communities, over and above purely biomass-dependent processes that would be expected under neutral theory. These results suggest that any ability to manage functional recovery of ecosystems during habitat restoration will demand knowledge of species' roles in ecosystem processes
Species radiation of carabid beetles (broscini: mecodema) in new zealand.
No full textNew Zealand biodiversity has often been viewed as Gondwanan in origin and age, but it is increasingly apparent from molecular studies that diversification, and in many cases origination of lineages, postdate the break-up of Gondwanaland. Relatively few studies of New Zealand animal species radiations have as yet been reported, and here we consider the species-rich genus of carabid beetles, Mecodema. Constrained stratigraphic information (emergence of the Chatham Islands) and a substitution rate for Coleoptera were separately used to calibrate Bayesian relaxed molecular clock date estimates for diversification of Mecodema. The inferred timings indicate radiation of these beetles no earlier than the mid-Miocene with most divergences being younger, dating to the Plio-Pleistocene. A shallow age for the radiation along with a complex spatial distribution of these taxa involving many instances of sympatry implicates recent ecological speciation rather than a simplistic allopatric model. This emphasises the youthful and dynamic nature of New Zealand evolution that will be further elucidated with detailed ecological and population genetic analyses
Longicheles Valle 1953
No full textLongicheles Valle, 1953 Geholaspis (Longicheles) Valle, 1953: 323, 343. Type species: Holostaspis mandibularis Berlese, 1904, by original designation. Geholaspis (Longicheles).— Krauss, 1970: 36; Hyatt & Emberson, 1988: 74; Mašán, 2003: 55. Longicheles.— Athias-Henriot, 1968: 241. Geholaspini with massively developed, elongate, multidentate chelicerae (Fig. 6); epistome with narrow, distally bifid median process (Fig. 7); dorsal setae j 5 strongly displaced posteriorly, lying well posterior to setae j 6 (Fig. 8); ventri-anal shield with five pairs of pre-anal setae. The dorsal shield has 28 pairs of setae, which are mainly pilose or plumose distally, except for a variable number of aciculate setae in the j-J series and sometimes one to three setae in the z-Z series. Setae z 1 may be short and pilose, or aciculate to slightly spatulate, and longer than j 1. Setae j 5 are displaced posteriorly, so that they are mesad and well posterior to j 6 (Fig. 8). The ventral setae are mostly simple except toward the posterior lateral margins. The sternal shield has punctate sculpture, without a distinct pattern of lines, and the metasternal plates are free and have the usual seta and pore. The epigynal shield is subtriangular, with a truncate posterior margin and covers strongly developed lateral epigynal sclerites. The ventri-anal shield is usually longer than broad; it has five pairs of pre-anal setae; one or both pairs of the Zv series may be plumose, and the inguinal pores are near the anterior lateral angles. The cheliceral digits are elongate and multidentate, the fixed chela always has more than five teeth, often many more (Fig. 6), and may have a row of accessory teeth on the external face (L. hortorum (Berlese)), while the movable chela has at least eight teeth and often have a row of accessory teeth on the external face (Fig. 6). The dentate anterior margin of the epistome is more or less transverse and has a narrow, bifid, median process, which may be distally dissected (Fig. 7). Spermathecal structures are generally not apparent, but the elongate tubuli and rami of two species have been illustrated by Athias-Henriot (1968). Males unknown. Protonymphs, where known, have a posterior extension of the hind margin of the podonotal shield into a median lobe bearing setae j 5. This extension is probably associated with a posterior migration of the cheliceral retractor muscles. Notes. Valle (1953) originally distinguished Longicheles from other subgenera of Geholaspis on the basis of two main characters: the elongate nature of the cheliceral digits in Longicheles, and the posterior displacement of setae j 5 (setae 18 in his system). The length of the cheliceral digits was expressed as the ratio of dorsal shield length to the length of the movable chela. The posterior displacement of setae j 5 was expressed as the ratio of dorsal shield length to the distance between setae z 5 and j 5 (setae 13 and 18 in his system). Valle’s characters are still considered valid and important in defining the genus. Evans & Browning (1956) introduced an additional character based on the length of setae z 1 (M 1 in their system), in which Longicheles was thought to have short setae and Geholaspis s. str. to have long, simple setae. This was shown by Balogh (1958) not to hold for all species of Longicheles. He described L. longisetosus Balogh as having long, simple z 1 setae, but with all the other characters of Longicheles. Valle (1963) and Valle & Mazzoleni (1967) subsequently described four additional species of Longicheles, from Mediterranean islands, which all have long, simple z 1 setae. Valle & Mazzoleni (1967) divided the species of Longicheles into four groups based mainly on the dentition and relative length of the cheliceral digits, but also the pilosity of seta j 2. However, Mašán (2003) has pointed out that in Central Europe there are two distinct groups of species within Longicheles, based on the length, pilosity, and position of the j 1 and z 1 setae. These groupings can be extended to all known species of Longicheles and are here referred to as the mandibularis species group, in which setae j 1 are close together so that their bases are virtually contiguous and setae z 1 are short and distally pilose (Fig. 8, 9), and the longulus species group, in which setae j 1 are distinctly separated and setae z 1 are longer than setae j 1 (Fig. 10). In the longulus species group, setae z 1 are usually aciculate or occasionally slightly spatulate/pectinate (L. bulgaricus Balogh). The most distinctive feature of Longicheles is the development of the elongate, multidentate cheliceral digits, which are unique in the family though somewhat similar to those of Lordocheles rykei Krantz. The fixed chela is nearly four times as long (from the tip to the dorsal seta) as they are wide. This development may be associated with the posterior migration of dorsal setae j 5 to a position well posterior to j 6 (Valle 1953), and the posterior projection of the hind margin of the podonotal shield in protonymphs of, at least, L. mandibularis (Berlese) and L. hortorum (Berlese) (Hirschmann 1987, Hyatt & Emberson 1988). This suite of unique apomorphic characters fully justifies the elevation of Longicheles to separate generic status as first suggested by Athias-Henriot (1968), but not generally accepted by subsequent authors. Although known from North America, Longicheles is mainly European in distribution, having been recorded from Ireland to European Russia (Bregetova & Koroleva 1960, Hyatt & Emberson 1988), but again seems to be most diverse in Central and Southern Europe (Valle 1953, 1963, Valle & Mazzoleni 1967, Mašán 2003). Longicheles mandibularis has been introduced to Australia (Halliday 2001) and New Zealand (new record), evidently by human agency. Included species: L. longulus species group: L. bianchii (Valle & Mazzoleni, 1967), new combination; L. bulgaricus (Balogh, 1958); L. ilvana (Valle & Mazzoleni, 1967), new combination; L. lagrecai Valle, 1963, new combination; L. longisetosus (Balogh, 1958), new combination; L. longulus (Berlese, 1887), new combination; L. ranzii (Valle & Mazzoleni, 1967), new combination. L. mandibularis species group: L. hortorum (Berlese, 1904); L. mandibularis (Berlese, 1904), new combination.Published as part of Emberson, Rowan M., 2010, A reappraisal of some basal lineages of the family Macrochelidae, with the description of a new genus (Acarina: Mesostigmata), pp. 37-53 in Zootaxa 2501 on pages 41-45, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19583
Longicheles Valle 1953
No full textLongicheles Valle, 1953 Geholaspis (Longicheles) Valle, 1953: 323, 343. Type species: Holostaspis mandibularis Berlese, 1904, by original designation. Geholaspis (Longicheles).— Krauss, 1970: 36; Hyatt & Emberson, 1988: 74; Mašán, 2003: 55. Longicheles.— Athias-Henriot, 1968: 241. Geholaspini with massively developed, elongate, multidentate chelicerae (Fig. 6); epistome with narrow, distally bifid median process (Fig. 7); dorsal setae j 5 strongly displaced posteriorly, lying well posterior to setae j 6 (Fig. 8); ventri-anal shield with five pairs of pre-anal setae. The dorsal shield has 28 pairs of setae, which are mainly pilose or plumose distally, except for a variable number of aciculate setae in the j-J series and sometimes one to three setae in the z-Z series. Setae z 1 may be short and pilose, or aciculate to slightly spatulate, and longer than j 1. Setae j 5 are displaced posteriorly, so that they are mesad and well posterior to j 6 (Fig. 8). The ventral setae are mostly simple except toward the posterior lateral margins. The sternal shield has punctate sculpture, without a distinct pattern of lines, and the metasternal plates are free and have the usual seta and pore. The epigynal shield is subtriangular, with a truncate posterior margin and covers strongly developed lateral epigynal sclerites. The ventri-anal shield is usually longer than broad; it has five pairs of pre-anal setae; one or both pairs of the Zv series may be plumose, and the inguinal pores are near the anterior lateral angles. The cheliceral digits are elongate and multidentate, the fixed chela always has more than five teeth, often many more (Fig. 6), and may have a row of accessory teeth on the external face (L. hortorum (Berlese)), while the movable chela has at least eight teeth and often have a row of accessory teeth on the external face (Fig. 6). The dentate anterior margin of the epistome is more or less transverse and has a narrow, bifid, median process, which may be distally dissected (Fig. 7). Spermathecal structures are generally not apparent, but the elongate tubuli and rami of two species have been illustrated by Athias-Henriot (1968). Males unknown. Protonymphs, where known, have a posterior extension of the hind margin of the podonotal shield into a median lobe bearing setae j 5. This extension is probably associated with a posterior migration of the cheliceral retractor muscles. Notes. Valle (1953) originally distinguished Longicheles from other subgenera of Geholaspis on the basis of two main characters: the elongate nature of the cheliceral digits in Longicheles, and the posterior displacement of setae j 5 (setae 18 in his system). The length of the cheliceral digits was expressed as the ratio of dorsal shield length to the length of the movable chela. The posterior displacement of setae j 5 was expressed as the ratio of dorsal shield length to the distance between setae z 5 and j 5 (setae 13 and 18 in his system). Valle’s characters are still considered valid and important in defining the genus. Evans & Browning (1956) introduced an additional character based on the length of setae z 1 (M 1 in their system), in which Longicheles was thought to have short setae and Geholaspis s. str. to have long, simple setae. This was shown by Balogh (1958) not to hold for all species of Longicheles. He described L. longisetosus Balogh as having long, simple z 1 setae, but with all the other characters of Longicheles. Valle (1963) and Valle & Mazzoleni (1967) subsequently described four additional species of Longicheles, from Mediterranean islands, which all have long, simple z 1 setae. Valle & Mazzoleni (1967) divided the species of Longicheles into four groups based mainly on the dentition and relative length of the cheliceral digits, but also the pilosity of seta j 2. However, Mašán (2003) has pointed out that in Central Europe there are two distinct groups of species within Longicheles, based on the length, pilosity, and position of the j 1 and z 1 setae. These groupings can be extended to all known species of Longicheles and are here referred to as the mandibularis species group, in which setae j 1 are close together so that their bases are virtually contiguous and setae z 1 are short and distally pilose (Fig. 8, 9), and the longulus species group, in which setae j 1 are distinctly separated and setae z 1 are longer than setae j 1 (Fig. 10). In the longulus species group, setae z 1 are usually aciculate or occasionally slightly spatulate/pectinate (L. bulgaricus Balogh). The most distinctive feature of Longicheles is the development of the elongate, multidentate cheliceral digits, which are unique in the family though somewhat similar to those of Lordocheles rykei Krantz. The fixed chela is nearly four times as long (from the tip to the dorsal seta) as they are wide. This development may be associated with the posterior migration of dorsal setae j 5 to a position well posterior to j 6 (Valle 1953), and the posterior projection of the hind margin of the podonotal shield in protonymphs of, at least, L. mandibularis (Berlese) and L. hortorum (Berlese) (Hirschmann 1987, Hyatt & Emberson 1988). This suite of unique apomorphic characters fully justifies the elevation of Longicheles to separate generic status as first suggested by Athias-Henriot (1968), but not generally accepted by subsequent authors. Although known from North America, Longicheles is mainly European in distribution, having been recorded from Ireland to European Russia (Bregetova & Koroleva 1960, Hyatt & Emberson 1988), but again seems to be most diverse in Central and Southern Europe (Valle 1953, 1963, Valle & Mazzoleni 1967, Mašán 2003). Longicheles mandibularis has been introduced to Australia (Halliday 2001) and New Zealand (new record), evidently by human agency. Included species: L. longulus species group: L. bianchii (Valle & Mazzoleni, 1967), new combination; L. bulgaricus (Balogh, 1958); L. ilvana (Valle & Mazzoleni, 1967), new combination; L. lagrecai Valle, 1963, new combination; L. longisetosus (Balogh, 1958), new combination; L. longulus (Berlese, 1887), new combination; L. ranzii (Valle & Mazzoleni, 1967), new combination. L. mandibularis species group: L. hortorum (Berlese, 1904); L. mandibularis (Berlese, 1904), new combination.Published as part of Emberson, Rowan M., 2010, A reappraisal of some basal lineages of the family Macrochelidae, with the description of a new genus (Acarina: Mesostigmata), pp. 37-53 in Zootaxa 2501 on pages 41-45, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19583
- …
