Cepheus (Oribatoidea), Especially in the Eastern United States

Download Cepheus (Oribatoidea), Especially in the Eastern United States

Post on 31-Jan-2017

213 views

Category:

Documents

1 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

<ul><li><p>Cepheus (Oribatoidea), Especially in the Eastern United StatesAuthor(s): Arthur Paul JacotSource: Transactions of the American Microscopical Society, Vol. 47, No. 2 (Apr., 1928), pp.262-268+270-271Published by: Wiley on behalf of American Microscopical SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3222178 .Accessed: 28/06/2014 09:58</p><p>Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms &amp; Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp</p><p> .JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.</p><p> .</p><p>Wiley and American Microscopical Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to Transactions of the American Microscopical Society.</p><p>http://www.jstor.org </p><p>This content downloaded from 193.142.30.61 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 09:58:43 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions</p><p>http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=amicroshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3222178?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp</p></li><li><p>CEPHEUS (ORIBATOIDEA), ESPECIALLY IN THE EASTERN UNITED STATES </p><p>ARTHUR PAUL JACOT </p><p>Shantung Christian University </p><p>The Genus. The type of this genus is C. latus Koch 1835, fasc. 3/11 by original designation (see Uebersicht, vol. 3, foreword, last paragraph, where Koch states that at the head of each genus he has given a figured specimen to stand as type). The figure of the Uebersicht is a mere outline but concords with that of his "Deutschlands Cructaceen, Myriapoden und Arachniden" except for the shading. The description is as follows: </p><p>Of average size. Cephaloprothorax broad conic, somewhat broad behind with a somewhat blunt lateral angle, and broad lamellae covering the upper surface and the anterior part; the usual, whitish, clavate pseudostigmatic organ not long and moderately thick. Abdomen somewhat short, broadened behind, bluntly rounded on hind edge, with somewhat projecting lateral edge; the surface above with fine wrinkling (slightly rugose, in latin) and not smooth. The femurs, seen from the side, broad ovate. </p><p>Body dark reddish brown (rusty brown), the cephaloprothorax darker, sides of abdomen and cephaloprothorax under the reddish-brown lamellae dark brown, sometimes also black. Legs rusty-yellow. Under moss in evergreen woods. Near Regensburg not a rarity. </p><p>In the figures, the lamellae join, covering the rostrum, the pseudo- stigmatic organs are recurved, the body is longer than broad, legs I. have major bristles besides other long bristles. </p><p>Nicolet (1855, p. 445) reappoints a type to Cepheus, namely his Cepheus vulgaris, a species of entirely different structure from the original type. Michael blindly follows him, as does also Berlese, and others. </p><p>Further on Nicolet (p. 464), using one of Hermann's specific names (tegeocranus), outlines a new genus in which he places Koch's type of Cepheus though he appoints another species as type. Thus, Cepheus Koch and Cepheus Nicolet are not congeneric but subsequent writers, from this mixing of types, received erroneous impressions and have placed their species of Cepheus under the term Tegeocranus. </p><p>Furthermore, Nicolet on p. 446 describes a new species which he calls Cepheus latus while on page 465 he places Cepheus latus of Koch as synonym under his new name Tegeocranus cepheiformis. This is what the French call "avoir du toupet." Subsequent writers indiscriminatingly follow him. Later (1887) Michael corrects this in part. He recognizes that C. latus Koch is not T. cepheiformis Nicolet and so he reinstates C. latus Koch, but ignores it as the originally designated type of Cepheus Koch. </p><p>Andre (1925) renames C. latus Nicolet as C. permixtus, but he does not go so far as to recognize C. latus Koch as type of the genus Cepheus Koch. </p><p>262 </p><p>This content downloaded from 193.142.30.61 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 09:58:43 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions</p><p>http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp</p></li><li><p>CEPHEUS, ESPECIALLY IN THE UNITED STATES </p><p>As this leaves Cepheus Nicolet and subsequent authors without a proper designation, I propose the term Pseudocepheus with Cepheus vulgaris Nicolet as type. I see no resemblance between Notaspis tegeocranus Her- mann and Cepheus ,ulgaris Nicolet. </p><p>Cepheus, a (presumably negroid) king of Ethiopia, is a masculine noun. </p><p>EUROPEAN SPECIES </p><p>Tegeocranus cepheiformis Nicolet, (p. 465, pl. 9, fig. 1, not Cepheus latus Nicolet, p. 446), is a true Cepheus. In figure 1, the lamellae are joined at apex, in figs. la and lb, they are narrowly separated. In figure lb they are not obliquely truncate as in the other figures. They far exceed the rostrum which is twice figured without rostral bristles. The interlamellar bristles are at base of cephaloprothorax. The pseudostigmatic organs are rigid, not reflected. The anterior edge of notogaster is figured convex. The abdomen is broader than long, more quadrate than ovate, and punctured and striated. The legs are figured without major bristles or other long bristles. </p><p>Very common in woods of Satory and Breche. </p><p>Tegeocranus latus Michael 1883, (p. 310, pl. 19, figs. 1-9) is a third species of Cepheus Koch having lamellae widely separated so that the rostrum projects, making'rostral bristles visible from above; interlamellar bristles remote from notogaster; pseudostigmatic organs reflexed; abdomen longer than broad, more ovate than quadrate; tibia I with major bristle. </p><p>Fairly common; decayed stumps and fallen branches in thick woods; generally distributed. </p><p>Tegeocranus dentatus Michael 1887, (p. 338, pl. 26 figs. 1-7 and 9) a fourth species, has lamellae antero-laterally emarginate and remote; interlamellar bristles distant; pseudostigmatic organs recurved; 14 medium long, circumnotogastral bristles; tibia I with major bristles. </p><p>Fairly common; decayed stumps and fallen branches with T. latus Michael; generally distributed. </p><p>Tegeocranus cepheiformis Michael 1887, (p. 340, pl. 25, figs. 1-7) not Nicolet, has lamellae separated by a knife cut; interlamellar bristles near together but remote from notogaster; pseudostigmatic organs re- curved; tibiae I with major bristle; notogaster anteriorly but slightly convex, outer corners prominently anteriorly produced, without bristles; posterior margin with 6 very short, stiff bristles. </p><p>New Forest, Gomshall (Surrey), near Stone (Staffordshire); fir trees (Picea), fallen needles, on bark, particularly fallen. </p><p>Thus quite different from Nicolet's. The abdomen seems to have coarser corrugations and the vertex is smooth. It may be known as Cepheus michaeli nom. nov. </p><p>263 </p><p>This content downloaded from 193.142.30.61 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 09:58:43 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions</p><p>http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp</p></li><li><p>ARTHUR PAUL JACOT </p><p>Tegeocranus cepheiformis Berlese 1886, (fasc. 33/7 and 1890, fasc. 57/5) is still different and seems composite. Careful work will have to be done on the Italian species before they can be intelligently discussed. </p><p>Tegeocranus hericius Michael 1887, (p. 346, pl. 25, figs. 8-13), may well be placed in a different subgenus but the great similarity of the nymphs to the nymphs of the other species of this group, is sufficient grounds to retain it within the genus. Due to its more primitive characters, namely, lesser development of lamellae, undifferentiated notogastral sculpture, large number of bristles (a nymphal character) and entire lack of develop- ment of antero-lateral corners of notogaster, I propose for it the term: </p><p>PROTOCEPHEUS subgen. nov. </p><p>Type: Tegeocranus hericius Michael 1887, (p. 346, pl. 25, figs. 8-13). It should be noted that although the adult of this species is less special- </p><p>ized than those of the genus proper, the nymph (fig. 9) is very similar to that of T. dentatus and T. latus Michael (see his plate 26, figs. 8, 9, 10). The subgeneric characters are listed above. </p><p>EAST AMERICAN SPECIES </p><p>Cepheus (Oribatodes) mirabilis (Banks) 1895a, p. 10, differs from all other species in having 18 long, stout, conspicuous, barbed bristles on notogaster (besides four short ones on posterioi rim). This character is sufficient to segregate the species in the subgenus of which it is monotypic. Like the other species of the genus, this one has monohamate ungues. It has been thrice named, described and figured as follows: </p><p>Sea Cliff, Long Id., N. Y.; in rotten debris under loose bark of dead trees; five specimens (one with six eggs) taken at different times. Described as Oribatodes mirabilis. </p><p>Blue Hill, Mass.; Oct. 1; one specimen; described as Cepheus lamellatus Banks 1906b, p. 467, pl. 15, fig. 14. </p><p>Washington, D. C.; from moss; one specimen; described as Tegeocranus longisetus Berlese 1910, p. 228, pl. 21, fig. 82. </p><p>Also collected by Jacot at: Monroe, Conn.; upland swamp, clump of Carex stricta Lam.; twenty </p><p>specimens taken Aug. 5-10; slides nos. 2511-2514. Same but from nearby clump of sphagnum moss; Aug. 18; twenty-seven specimens under nos. 2521n2 and 2522nl. Some of these specimens contain four to six eggs. </p><p>CEPHEUS CORAE sp. nov. </p><p>Diagnosis: Lamellae separated by a very narrow cleft; interlamellar hairs remote from notogaster and from lamellae; pseudostigmatic organs recurved; notogaster coarsely reticulate; antero-lateral corners produced, pteromorphal ridge distinct, finely sculptured; bristles not evident, five very fine ones on each side and two on posterior border. </p><p>264 </p><p>This content downloaded from 193.142.30.61 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 09:58:43 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions</p><p>http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp</p></li><li><p>CEPHEUS, ESPECIALLY IN THE UNITED STATES </p><p>Form: From above (figure 1) broadly pyriform, blunt at both ends, from side (figure 2) irregularly three fourths of a semicircle; from in front broadly oval. </p><p>Cephaloprothorax (figs. 1 and 2) broadly conical; tectopedia II pro- jecting as rectangular bosses below and anterior to pseudostigmata; rosturm barely visible between lamellae, rostral bristles invisible from above, small (see figure 2 just above genual I), smooth above, reticulate on sides; lamellae broad, slightly notched to receive bristles, narrowing towards base and outwardly deflected at base, reticulate throughout, bristles thick, sharply bent towards each others near middle; interlamellar bristles coarse (thick) rather short, smooth; tectopedia I forming a long, low ridge near base of lamellae (figure 2); tectopedia II forming a second low ridge extending from posterior edge of pseudostigmata slightly forward to posterior edge of base of leg I (figure 2) and then passing beneath it as a broad shelf. Figure 6 shows the cephaloprothorax viewed from in front and a little from the right side. The camerostome is seen to be en- circled by a thickened band which breaks up at the sides into a complex of ridges which radiate out to join the tectopedia. Above these is a second, short ridge upon which terminate the lamellae. This has been called a translamella by some. Above the lamellae the ends of the interlamellar bristles are visible. The rostral and lamellar bristles have been omitted. The anterior end of the sternum (st.) is just visible below the camerostome and to each side, curving up to tectopedia II, are the apodemata. Pseudo- stigmatic organs (figures 3 and 4) with a short, broad, club-like head with spiny tip, pedicel below curve about 15 microns, beyond curve about 40 microns. </p><p>Abdomen seen from above (figure 1) nearly circular, very slightly longer than broad, anterior margin slightly convex, finely crenate, remain- der irregularly undulate, posterior margin with two broad notches in whose center is a short, curved, subbarbate bristle (see slso figure 2). From the side: obliquely truncate behind, straight below, convex above. Notogaster divided into two distinct parts, a low vaulted top (shield) and a wedge- shaped side, broadest behind; shield coarsely reticulate; reticulations angular about center, seeming more rounded about periphery, rim of shield smooth, broden at subequal intervals along sides by five, short ridges bearing at or beyond their apex a fine, straight bristle which does not extend to rim of notogaster; sides divided into three wedge-shaped sections, the lower-most smooth, the upper two corrugated by cross ridges which meet obliquely to form a broken, irregular, separating ridge; anterior end of this ridge expanded as a broad, low, finely crenulate ridge, which projects beyond anterior rim of notogaster as a blunt shoulder (figures 1 and 2). Though actually a rudimentary pteromorpha, this ridge is hardly enough developed to place the species among the Pterogasterine Oribatids. </p><p>265 </p><p>This content downloaded from 193.142.30.61 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 09:58:43 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions</p><p>http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp</p></li><li><p>ARTHUR PAUL JACOT </p><p>Other species of the genus have this pteromorphic ridge equally or less fully to not at all developed (judging from Nicolet's figure of his T. cepheiformis). This ridge is further illustrated in figures 4 and 6. In the former, which is a view from behind, looking toward the arched lamella, the shoulder of the ridge is figured in detail; in the latter the ridge is seen from below. Venter (fig. 2) separated from cephaloprothorax by a low, narrow ridge; apodemata I at sides of camerostome, apodemata II descending and parallel to posterior sides of camerotome but remote from it, and above "suture" running between insertion of legs II nearly at right angles to median plane; parasterna I reticulate on anterior half, smooth, like the others, on posterior half, with short, fine bristle near center; a pair of sternal bristles between ends of suture and a pair anterior to these; apdemata II slightly bowed ventrad, just above "suture;" parasterna II bristle-less (unless the area between ends of preceding suture is part of parastenum II); tectopedium III narrow, flat on posterior face and followed by a wide notch in which coxa III articulates, a long slender bristle near ventral margin of this notch; parasterna III entirely anterior to genital aperture, its sides subparallel, with three pairs of bristles: an anterior pair over center of apodemata III, the others forming a line along center of plate and included by sides of genital opening produced; para- sterna IV roughly triangular, at sides of genital opening, with a short bristle near posterior angle; remainder of venter irregularly corrugated and reticulated, but with a smooth band about genital and anal openings; a bristle each side of anal aperture outside first ridge; genital aperture sl...</p></li></ul>

Recommended

View more >