S. Mahunka szerk.: Folia Entomologica Hungarica 32/2. (Budapest, 1979)

Allosuctobelba nova (D. Krivolutsky, 1971) Vest. Cs. spol. zool., 71: 120-121, figs. 2: a-b. (Rhynchobelba) Opr. Obit. Po. Kles. (Sarcopt. ): 203, fig. 445. Rostrum in dorsal view with less number of teeth than given by KRIVOLUTSKY, first incisure larger and deeper (Fig. 8). Its relationship to the true A. grandis Paoli, 1908 (= ? S. grandis sensu AOKI, 1970) requires further examination. Rhynchobelba altaica D. Krivolutsky, 1971 Vest. Cs. spol. zool., 35: 118-119, figs. 1: a-c. Opr. Obit. Po. Kles. (Sarcopt. ): 203, fig. 443. The original drawing of KRIVOLUTSKY well corresponds to the holotype, the only difference is that the rostral hair is significantly longer than lamellar one (Fig. 9), the error may of course be due to the position of the specimen in the preparation. Suctobelbella hammeri (D. Krivolutsky, 1965) Ent. Obozr.

, 44: 707-708, figs. 3: a-c (Suctobelba) Opr. Obit. Po. Kles. (Sarcopt.): 199, figs. 416: a-b. The literal teeth of the rostrum in lateral view, pointed out to be variable also by the author, indeed are difficult to recognize, they are not symmetrical. I found the sculpture of the prodorsum to be finer consequently more difficult to identify (Fig. 10). Suctobelbella opistodentata (Golosova, 1970) Zool. Zsurn., 49: 699, figs. 5-9. (Suctobelba) Opr. Obit. Po. Kles. (Sarcopt.): 199, figs. 422: a-b. The specimen at Leningrad is much damaged, rather difficult to examine, consequently, only a few detail-drawings could be performed (Figs. 11, 13). These have been well identifiable with the original drawings of GOLOSOVA, excepting the figure of the sensillus. I found the petiole of the sensillus to be much shorter and somewhat thicker. Suctobelbella ornata (D. Krivolutsky, 1966) Bjull. Mosk. Obs. Pri. otd. biol.

, 71: 128-129, figs. 5: a-b. (Suctobelba) Opr. Obit. Po. Kles. (Sarcopt.): 199, figs. 415: a-b. The specimen preserved at Leningrad without doubt belongs to an entirely other species (Fig. 14-16). Suctobelbella tatarica (D. Krivolutsky, 1968) Opr. Obit. Po. Kles. (Sarcopt. ): 202, figs. 434: a-b. (1975) The original description of the species is unknown to me. The examined specimen (Figs. 17) is well identifiable in the key to the soil mites, including the respective figure, though the rostral teeth are somewhat different, but this latter may well be due to disfigurement caused by the fixed preparation. Oppia alejnicovae D. Krivolutsky et Gatilova, 1974 Zool. Zsurn., 53: 129, figs, a, b, v. In a comprehensive work GOLOSOVA (1975) published a new drawing (p. 221: Fig. 513a) of the prodorsum. The holotype is somewhat damaged during preparation, nevertheless, it is still well identifiable (Fig. 18). The bases of rostral hairs are connected by well perceptible, comparatively thick chitin lath, the hairs are emitted on short apophysis. In front of lamellar hairs only a very thin chitin-line present. Costula represented by a thin line only starting from bothridium