A review of acarid mites (Acariformes: Acaridae) associated with bark beetles (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae), with description of Ipsoglyphus bochkovi gen. and sp. nov.

Abstract

Acarid mites associated with bark beetles feed on fungi, transfer fungal spores, and promote fungal strain recombination inside beetles’ galleries. Many of these mites are omnivorous generalists, with a clear preference to mycetophagy, living in different subcortical habitats, including galleries of bark beetles. We reviewed associations of acarid mites and scolytine beetles numbering 26 mite species in 11 genera associated with 45 bark beetle species in 17 countries (134 unique records total). A new genus and species of acarid mite, Ipsoglyphus bochkovi, gen. and sp. nov. (Acariformes: Acaridae) collected from Ips typographus pheromone traps in Western Siberia, Russia, is described and illustrated from deutonymphs. The new genus differs from all other acarid genera of by a combination of the following characters: two solenidia on genu I, an unpaired eye-spot present on the anterior prodorsum, and palpal supracoxal setae (elc p) lanceolate. As part of this work, we established the following new synonymies and combinations: Halictacarus zakhvatkini (Delfinado and Baker, 1976) comb. nov. from Schulzea (=Schulzea orientalis Putatunda & Kapil, 1995 syn. nov.; Schulzea halicti Putatunda and Kapil, 1995 syn. nov.); Halictacarus indicus (Putatunda & Kapil, 1995) comb. nov. from Schulzea; Forecellinia insolita (Woodring & Moser, 1970) comb. nov. from Anoetus; Histiogaster wichmanni (Türk & Türk, 1957) comb. nov. from Caloglyphus; Reckiacarus sudeticus (Kiełczewski & Wiśniewski, 1975), comb. n. from Histiogaster; Reckiacarus stammeri (F. Türk & E. Türk, 1957) comb. n. from Histiogaster. The following names were emended to agree in gender with the generic name Histiogaster Berlese, 1883 (feminine): Histiogaster iberica Kadzhaya, 1959, Histiogaster robusta Woodring, 1966, Histiogaster rotunda Woodring, 1966, Histiogaster striatissima Mahunka, 1973. Between the variant spellings Histiogaster arborsignum Woodring, 1963 and Histiogaster arborsignis Woodring, 1966, the latter is an incorrect subsequent spelling, however, because it is in prevailing usage, we treat it as correct: Histiogaster arborsignis Woodring, 1963.