S. Mahunka szerk.: Folia Entomologica Hungarica 62. (Budapest, 2001)

wall was rather steep (depth about 60 cm). This construction facilitated quick accumulation of the material. The aspirator was so applied that the very last fragment of the debris was secured. The application of this method was a success, for we collected comparatively a rather large number of mites including even such groups which were never expected to turn up as arboricolous species, e.g. those of Passalozetes Grandjean, 1931 or Uracrobates Balogh et Mahunka, 1967. This paper proposes to discuss five species of which three are new for science, and the description of which is presented hereunder. Simultaneously we treat two already known species: Passalozetes bidactylus Coggi, 1900 having a wide distribution in the Palaearctic and Uracrobates africanus Mahunka, 1988 from Tanzania. Questions in taxonomy, morphology and distribution are discussed in the latter two species. In describing the new species I follow the selection of the already used terminus technicus, abbreviations and formulae referring to the variation of the number of setae. DESCRIPTIONS Passalozetes (Bipassalozetes) bidactylus Coggi, 1900 Only a single Passalozetes species was found. The whole of the material which has been identified on the basis of claw number to be P. (B.) bidactylus in the subgenus Passalozetes has not been found so far from the Ethiopian region. The specimen from Kenya was compared to the description of Strenzke and the Hungarian specimens similarly identified by using this re-description, we found that apart from some slight differences, the specimen unequivocally can be identified with this species. The species from Kenya (Figs 1-4) is somewhat bigger (418 x 231 urn) than what Strenzke gave and what the Hungarian exemplars exhibit (362 x 191 urn) and also darker in shade. The sculpture is more pronounced and the outgrowths show a much darker shade. A slight difference was apparent in the shorter branches of the star-like formations, and by the striking, small, densely set irregular outgrowths among the branches, while in the Hungarian specimens the irregular outgrowths are less in number. In spite of these no real morphological deviation was extant. The problem is that the re-description of Strenzke (1953) does not consider the type specimen. In his description Coggi (1900) defines the dorsal setae as simple, furthermore, the sculpture of the notogaster is not quite clear. The uncertainty regarding the identity of the species is also established by the description of Pérez-Inigo (1993) when saying that the rostral and the notogastral setae are simple, further, the notogastral sculpture in front of the lenticulus is different, which is also figured. This difference is so great that the species of Perez-Inigo and that of Strenzke cannot be the same. The question may only be solved by a thorough study of Coggi's type, or material collected at the type locality. To show the presence of a Palaearctic species is all the more interesting since the Passalozetes species are known from various Ethiopian faunal regions, like from Chad (Wallwork 1964), from the South African Republic (Engelbrecht 1974) and Madagascar (Mahunka 1997).