S. Mahunka szerk.: Folia Entomologica Hungarica 51. (Budapest, 1990)
thoughts of revising the system of this group. Consequently, I believe it is more than timely to make this revision now. Following the fundamental works of Grandjean (1954) , quite independently from each other k:. MMrkel (1964) and N.A. Walker ( 1965) elaborated the superfamily of Euphthiracaroidea Jacot, 1930.* Both authors gave detailed histories** of the research of the group, including the description of the morphological characteristics indispensable in diagnoses and classification, furthermore, keys were appended to separate the different taxa. Grandjean (1967) supervised the works of the two experts and elaborated such a framework which has not changed eversince . The newly established supraspecific taxa described by Ramsay and Sheals (1969) and Hammer (1967) could be easily fitted into this framework, as were the recently described species into the already existing genera. However, the years of the 1980s, my works (Mahunka, 1983, 1987, 1988, 1989) as well as those of Pérez-Inigo (1986) on tropical materials gradually brought forward new results. Furthermore, some of my papers just under publication (Mahunka 1990a, b) also contain such descriptions and new information which could be used in my present study. Hereunder , to start with I survey the suitable and used features in the description of Euphthiracaroidea making comments on the evolutionary trends distinguishable in them. Following this section I give the diagnoses of all supraspecific taxa considered to be valid by me, and also present the description of some supraspecifuc taxa. I also discuss some inadequately described or understood taxa endeavouring to give suplementary notes , corrections and drawing the attention to some inconsequences and conclusions. By using clusteranalysis I try to explore the degree of relationships between old and new taxa and relying on these findings and on various other considerations I draw up a new system for the group. I compiled keys to separate the supraspecific taxa and a catalogue will help orientation among the taxa. Finally I consider the applied terminus technicus be that English, French or German. Further, I should like to discuss the specific composition of the supraspecific taxa giving readily useable keys . Owing to technical reasons it is highly probable that my work can only be published in two parts . The great majority of the material used in my revision is partly deposited in the collection of the Hungarian Natural History Museum, Budapest and partly in the Muséum d'Histoire naturelle de Geneve. I also had the opportunity to examine the respective types of the Berlese Collection (Istitu-to Sperimentale per la Zoológia Agraria, Firenze). Thanks are also due to Dr.R.A.Norton who was kind enough to lend me paratypes of two species belonging in the genus S ynicho- tritia Walker, 1965. Apart from a few features the special terminology of Grandjean (1933, 1967) and that of Ramsay and Sheals (1969) was used. Since the measurement data of ptychoid Oribatida differ from the generally accepted measurements, and also because other measurement point are used, I also give these ( Figs 1-2) . When discussing a species I always give its place of deposition. The list of abbreviated institutes is as follows: BM(NH)= British Museum (Natural History), London BPBM = Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu DSIR = Entomology Division, D.S.I.R., Nelson HNHM = Hungarian Natural History Museum, Budapest ISZA = Istituto sperimentale de la Zoológia Agraria, Florence MCZ = Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge MHNG = Museum d'Histoire naturelle, Geneva RNH = Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden SMNH = Swedish Museum of Natural History, Stockholm USNM = United States National Museum of Natural History, Washington ZIMA = Zoologisches Institut und Museum der Ernst-Moritz-Arndt Universität, Greifswald Märkel used the name pf Euphthiracaridae . 'For this reason my introduction concerns itself with the historical events of recent times.
