S. Mahunka szerk.: Folia Entomologica Hungarica 32/2. (Budapest, 1979)
FOLIA ENTOMOLOGICA HUNGARICA ROVARTANI KÖZLEMÉNYEK (SERIES NOVA) XXXII. 2. p. 133-137 1979 Some remarks on the polymorphism (phoretomorphism) in Tarsonemid mites By S. MAHUNKA (Received December 10, 1978) Abstract: A summary of investigations and results concerning polymorphism; corrections of taxonomic and systematic inferences. The position of the genera Siteroptes Amerling, 1861, Pediculaster Vitzthum, 1931, and Pygroephorellus Cross et Moser, 1971, and the separation of the normal "siteroptid and phoretic "pediculasteroid" forms in the three genera. Intraspecific polymorphism - excluding, of course, the primary sexual dimorphism is generally and since long known in mites. Among its possible forms, secondary sexual dimorphism occurs also in nearly all higher categories (ordo, supercohors), though its frequency may be highly divers. Sexual dimorphism ca%thus be found in some few genera only in the Oribatids ( Collohmannia Sellnick, 1922, Pirnodus Grandjean, 1956, Parakalumina Jacot, 1929), but in the majority of Acarid genera and apparently without exception in every Tarsonemid genera. The intraspecific di- or polymorphism of the given sex occurs much more rarely, but the respective forms have often been misrecognized or misinterpreted for some time, or hidden and described as distinct species, eventually also in divers genera. Such polymorphisms have long been known in the family Acaridae, even three different kinds* (homoiomorphic, bimorphic and pleomorphic) of males of a species may occur (TÜRK, E. et TÜRK, F. 1957:14) in some genera (Sancassania Oudemans, 1916, Rhizoglyphus Claparéde, 1869, and SCHWIEBA Oudemans, 1916). The phenomenon is known also in the family Anoetidae. and SMILEY et MOSER (1976:307) mention further data mainly in the Prostigmata andAcarida. In the Tarsonemids, the phenomenon was for a long time unrecognized or misinterpreted; it appears primarily in the females and more seldom in the males. Realization of the phenomenon was made more difficult by the fact that the rearing of species belonging in the group is troublesome, they can only exceptionally be collected in long series and the two morphologically rather disparate forms could without difficulty be relegated to various genera described since several decades, or new genera established for them on the basis of their very differences. It was only in exceptional cases when some conspicuous morphological features (e.g. in Pediculitopsis tubiphorus Mahunka, 1969) or a closed and special habitat (e.g. of Resinacarus resinatus Vitzthum, 1927) suggested the conspecificity of the given forms so '.n related species there exists also a fourth, heteromorphic, form.
