Fedrizzia carabi Womersley
Creators: name: Seeman, Owen D.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2007
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Arachnida
Mesostigmata
Fedrizziidae
Fedrizzia
Fedrizzia carabi

description: Fedrizzia carabi Womersley
Fedrizzia carabi Womersley, 1959: 20.
Fedrizzia unospina Karg, 1999: 56. Syn. nov.
Type specimens. Holotype, F, PAPUA NEW GUINEA: Aiyura, vii.1956, H. Womersley, from carabid beetle (N1952282). In SAMA. Paratypes, F, 2 M, same data as holotype (N1952283-N1952285). In SAMA.
Other specimens. Holotype, F, F. unospina, auf Passaliden (Zuckerkäfer) auf West-Guinea, 1992, leg. M. Balke. Slide also with label “ Fedrizzia unospina F KARG 1995. 6752”, marked holotype by a red T.
Diagnosis. Both sexes: idiosoma 750–880 long, with 2–6 large pores; ventral, ventrianal and marginal shields lineate-reticulate; exopodal patterning between CxII–III spotted; anterolateral corner of ventrianal shield fused with ventral shield; pedofossae III absent; CxIV-marginal suture absent; femur III and IV without lamellae, seta pv1 not significantly thickened; femur IV moderately elongated; seta h1 unmodified. Female: setae st2-4 5–8 long; lyrifissure stp2 level with stp x; sternogynial shield weakly reticulate, flanked by several pores, not surrounded by a distinct smooth area. Male: sternoventral shield with suture behind genital opening demarking anterior smooth and posterior reticulated areas; genital opening flanked by one pair of pores; seta h3 positioned posterior of h2.
Remarks. The paratypes of F. c a r a b i are of better quality than the holotype. This species was collected from an unidentified carabid beetle.
Here I synonymise Fedrizzia unospina Karg with Fedrizzia carabi. Karg (1999) described this species from a passalid beetle in Papua New Guinea and did diagnose this species as different from F. c a r a b i. The main difference was the palp, which has a process bearing one spine, but in F. carabi there are three spines. I have seen only the holotype female and the palp is not clear in this specimen. Nevertheless, the form of the palp trochantal process is easy to misinterpret: in my original analysis of the Fedrizziidae (Seeman 2002) I thought this structure contained much value. However, I was mostly wrong: depending on the view in prepared slides, the palp trochantal process can differ in appearance, especially the number of visible processes. The essential information from this structure is mostly at the generic level. Most Fedrizzia have a process with one blunt process and one spine or irregular, denticulate process (Figs 27–29); Parafedrizzia have a blunt process and a weak, pointed process (Fig. 31); and Neofedrizzia have a process with two blunt lumps (Fig. 32). Karg (1999: Figure 5 c) essentially illustrates the form of the palp trochantal spine in all Fedrizzia with the exception of F. parvipilus sp. nov., which has an acutely pointed process with one or two additional small spines (Fig. 30).
If the palp trochantal process is uninformative then we are left with three characters, the ratio of length:width of the anal shield, length:width of the sternogynial shield, and the reticulation of the peritrematal region. First, F. c a r a b i and F. unospina, like all members of the Fedrizziidae, have reticulated peritrematalmarginal (i.e. lateral ‘ventral’) shields. Secondly, the difference between length:width of the anal shield is very small, 1:2.2 in F. c a r a b i (not 1:2 as in Karg [1999]) and 1:2.4 in F. unospina, as is the length:width ratio of the sternogynial shield, 1: 1 in F. carabi compared to 1:1.1 in F. unospina. Furthermore, my measurement of the anal shield of the holotype of F. unospina returned a ratio of 1:2.6 for the ventrianal shield and 1:0.95 for the genital opening. These differences presumably result from ambiguities arising from deciding which point to measure the margins of these shields. The ventrianal shield can overlap the ventral shield and usually underlies the marginal shields, and the sternogynial shield can underlie the ventral shield in its anterolateral margins and posteriorly – indeed, this is the case in the holotype specimen of F. unospina. Therefore, I do not consider F. carabi and F. unospina different, and F. unospina is thus synonymised.
description: Published as part of Seeman, Owen D., 2007, Revision of the Fedrizziidae (Acari: Mesostigmata: Fedrizzioidea), pp. 1-55 in Zootaxa 1480 on pages 23-24, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.176844