Identification, Images, & Information
For Insects, Spiders & Their Kin
For the United States & Canada
Clickable Guide
Moths Butterflies Flies Caterpillars Flies Dragonflies Flies Mantids Cockroaches Bees and Wasps Walkingsticks Earwigs Ants Termites Hoppers and Kin Hoppers and Kin Beetles True Bugs Fleas Grasshoppers and Kin Ticks Spiders Scorpions Centipedes Millipedes

Calendar

TaxonomyBrowseInfoImagesLinksBooksData
Photo#254618
Mite

Mite
Sand Springs, Osage County, Oklahoma, USA
February 22, 2009
Size: 2mm (1/16")
Please help with ID.

Images of this individual: tag all
Mite Mite Mite

Moved

Possible ID
I really wish I could see a specimen of this enigmatic mite!

Based solely upon gestalt, I now suspect this to be a very rarely-observed family--Tanaupodidae. Species-level, and even genus-level, diversity of this group is VERY poorly known in the US and this photograph almost certainly represents an undescribed species that I currently know only from a few specimens from Texas. Excellent find!

Again, this identification is not certain. I am only 60-80% confident. But given the close resemblance of this individual to specimens I have observed in Texas, I am comfortable moving to the family page, at least for now, given that this caveat is visible.

Moved
Moved from Velvet Mites.

From Rod Crawford:
"...family Trombidiidae. They are predators, except in the larval stage
which is parasitic on insects."

 
Characters?
What characters are you using to identify Trombidiidae to the exclusion of other trombidioids (Johnstonianidae, Neotrombidiidae, Podothrombidiidae, etc.)? This specimen almost looks like a johnstonianid to me, but I'm still learning trombidioids, and can not differentiate most of the families without slide specimens yet.

 
From Rod:
I was being a lumper in that comment, calling any relatively large
trombidioid mite, a trombidiid, which is probably the commonest family
in the group. The actual taxonomic characters are fine structure of
the setae and micro-sense organs that are only visible on
slide-mounted specimens.

 
Lumping vs. misinformation
First, the most common trombidioids are trombiculids, eutrombidiids, and in particular microtrombidiids... NOT trombidiids. Second, it is not accurate to call "large" trombidioids trombidiids. There are plenty of large velvet mites that are in other families, and also small trombidiids. Regardless, this specimen is not large (~2mm), and doesn't qualify.

Second, many trombidioids can be IDed to family by photograph without need of slide preparation. One example is Dinothrombium (Trombidiidae). I don't know of any other desert dwelling velvet mite that even approaches that size (they can get huge: >1cm). Another example are the microtrombidiids that have bulbous setae (e.g. 177478), or eutrombidiids with a pygidial sclerite (e.g. 181073, or trombiculids with the classic figure 8 body (e.g. http://www.fcps.edu/islandcreekes/ecology/Arthropods/Chigger/chigger_adult_l.jpg). Even some trombidiids are can be guessed accurately.

However, with a group like Trombidioidea, which has such an enoromous amount of misconceptions and misidentifications even in primary literature, I don't think "lumping" in your sense is a great idea. For one thing, we already are "lumping" when we correctly identify them by superfamily. No need to blatantly misidentify something just to put a family name on it.

This looks more like a johnstonianid or microtrombidiid to me anyway. For now, until someone knows the beast, or IDs one from a slide... let's put it back into Trombidioidea.

 
Fixed,
thanks Ray.

Comment viewing options
Select your preferred way to display the comments and click 'Save settings' to activate your changes.