Zootaxa 5375 (1): 093–102 ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition)

https://www.mapress.com/zt/
Copyright © 2023 Magnolia Press
Article ZOOTAXA
ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition)
https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5375.1.5
http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:55AA33AF-56BE-4EA9-8383-EEA56D4B902B

A new species of the genus Diptilomiopus Nalepa and a key to diptilomiopid

species (Prostigmata; Eriophyoidea; Diptilomiopidae) associated with Moraceae
plant family
EID MUHAMMAD KHAN1, MUHAMMAD KAMRAN1 & FAHAD JABER ALATAWI1,*
1
Department of Plant Protection, College of Food and Agriculture Sciences, King Saud University, P.O. Box 2460, Riyadh, 11451,
Saudi Arabia
� ekhan@ksu.edu.sa; https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5008-2524
� mrafique@ksu.edu.sa; https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6084-203X
*Correspondence author. � falatawi@ksu.edu.sa; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6824-2650

Abstract

The subfamily Diptilomiopinae Keifer and the genus Diptilomiopus Nalepa (Prostigmata; Eriophyoidea; Diptilomiopidae)
are recorded for the first time from Saudi Arabia with the description and illustration of a new species, D. bahaensis sp.
nov., collected from Ficus carica L. (Moraceae). Additionally, a key to diptilomiopid mite species reported from the plant
family Moraceae is provided, along with their distribution and habitus to the host plants.

Key words: Acari, bahaensis, Diptilomiopinae, figs, key, taxonomy

Introduction

The mite family Diptilomiopidae Keifer Nalepa (Prostigmata; Eriophyoidea) includes two subfamilies;
Diptilomiopinae Keifer (tarsal empodium divided) and Rhyncaphytoptinae Roivainen (tarsal empodium entire)
(Amrine et al. 2003). These subfamilies are comprised of 35 genera (above 324 species) and 18 genera (206 species),
respectively (Craemer et al. 2017; Liu et al. 2019; Xue & Li, 2020; Varandi et al. 2022; Qin et al. 2022; Qin et al.
2023).
The genus Diptilomiopus belong to subfamily Diptilomiopinae, erected by Nalepa based on the type species,
D. javanicus (Nalepa 1916). This genus is morphologically distinct from other closely related genera by absence of
coxal seta 1b and genu segment on all legs (Amrine et al. 2003). It includes more than 100 species and most of them
have been reported from dicotyledonous host plants in the oriental region of the world (Liu et al. 2019).
The plant family Moraceae (often known as fig or mulberry family) is comprised of 38 genera and over 1100
species widely distributed over the world (The Plant List 2023). Until now, 27 species of family Diptilomiopidae
have been reported from the Moraceae plant family, of which 13 species were from Ficus spp., four from Morus
spp., and two species each from Maclura spp., Broussonetia spp., Streblus spp., and Artocarpus spp (Amrine &
de Lillo, 2011 unpublished databases). Most of the diptilomiopid mite species, reported on the host plant family
Moraceae, belong to the genus Diptilomiopus (Chakrabarti et al. 2019).
From Saudi Arabia (SA), the family Diptilmiopidae was previously known with only one species; Rhyncaphytoptus
ficifoliae Keifer reported from Ficus carica (Moraceae) (Alatawi & Halawa 2011). In the present study, a new
species; Diptilomiopus bahaensis sp. nov. is described and illustrated, collected from Ficus carica (Moraceae),
Baha, SA. Moreover, a key to all known species of the family Diptilomiopidae, their distribution and habitus with
host plant family Moraceae are provided (Table 1).

Accepted by A. Katlav: 19 Oct. 2023; published: 21 Nov. 2023 93

 TABLE 1. Mites of the family Diptilomiopidae associated with the Moraceae plant family.
Diptilomiopidae Moraceae
Subfamily Genus Species Distribution Genus Species Relationship Reference
ficusis (Chakrabarti, Vagrant on lower
Chakrabartiella India Ficus unknown Chakrabarti et al. 1992
Ghosh & Das) surface
Armenia; Australia;
Chile; Egypt; Great
ficifoliae Keifer Britain; Greece; India; Ficus carica Under leaf surface Keifer, 1939
Iran; Italy; Portugal;
Rhyncaphytoptus Saudi Arabia; USA
caricae Zhao & Kuang China Ficus carica Vagrant Zhao & Kuang 1998
zhongshani Zhao & Kuang China Ficus carica Vagrant Zhao & Kuang 1998
Rhyncaphytoptinae

94 · Zootaxa 5375 (1) © 2023 Magnolia Press

mori Liu & Kuang China Morus alba Vagrant Liu & Kuang 1998
papyriferae Xue & Hong China Broussonetia papyrifera Vagrant Xue & Hong 2005
tricuspidata
Quadracus cudraniae Kuang China Maclura Vagrant Kuang 1986
Carrière
tricuspidata
Peralox cudraniae Kuang & Hong China Maclura Vagrant Kuang et al. 1991
Carrière
Vagrant on lower
Catarhinus mori Huang China Morus australis Huang 2001
surface
Rhinophytoptus broussonetiae Kuang China Broussonetia kazinoki Vagrant Kuang 1986
ficus Attiah Egypt Ficus carica Vagrant Attiah 1967
ficifolius (Boczek & Boczek & Oleczek
Nigeria Ficus sur Forssk Vagrant
Oleczek) 1988
Yellowing and
Diptilomiopinae Diptilomiopus ficusis Chakrabarti & Chakrabarti & Mondal
India Ficus hispida L stunted growth of
Mondal 1983
leaves
indicus Chakrabarti & Vagrant under Chakrabarti & Pandit
India Ficus unknown
Pandit surface of leaves. 1996
...Continued on the next page

KHAN ET AL.
 TABLE 1. (Continued)
Subfamily Genus Species Distribution Genus Species Relationship Reference
asperis Ghosh & Vagrant under leaf Ghosh & Chakrabarti
India Streblus asper
Chakrabarti surface 1989
racemosae (Chandrapatya Chandrapatya and
Thailand Ficus racemosa Vagrant
& Boczek) Boczek 2001
benjaminae (Boczek & Vagrant on lower Boczek and
Thailand Ficus benjamina
Chandrapatya) surface Chandrapatya 2002
cumingis Huang China Ficus cumingii Vagrant Huang 2001
Vagrant on lower Boczek &
strebli (Boczek) Thailand Streblus asper
surface Chandrapatya 1992
Diptilomiopus Vagrant on lower
sabahus Liu, Yuan & Xue Malaysia Morus unknown Liu et al. 2019
surface

A new species of the genus Diptilomiopus Nalepa

tinctoria
subsp. Vagrant on lower
Diptilomiopinae ficivorus Sarkar India Ficus Sarkar 2011
gibbosa surface
(Blume)
broussonetus Liu, Yuan Vagrant on lower
Malaysia Broussonetia unknown Liu et al. 2019
& Xue surface
bahaensis sp. nov.
Saudi Arabia Ficus carica Vagrant Present study
Alatawi & Khan
Asetadiptacus emiliae Carmona Itlay; Mexico;Portugal; Ficus carica Ficus carica Vagrant, rust. Carmona 1970
lakoochii Pandir & Vagrant on lower Pandit & Chakrabarti
Neorhynacus India Artocarpus lacucha
Chakrabarti surface 2007
Vagrant on lower
Apodiptacus cordiformis Keifer Hungary, USA; Morus alba Keifer 1960
leaf surface
artocarpae Vagrant on lower
Vimola India; Thailand Artocarpus heterophyllus Mohanasundaram 1981
(Mohanasundaram, 1981) surface

Zootaxa 5375 (1) © 2023 Magnolia Press ·

95
Materials and methods

Different plant foliage (leaves, twigs and branches) was snipped from the host plants and placed in polythene
bags along with paper towels and stored in the ice box. Mite specimens were collected directly from foliage under
a dissecting stereomicroscope and also by the modified washing method following Monfreda et al. (2007). The
collected specimens were cleared in lactic acid at room temperature and mounted in Keifer’s media (Amrine et al.
2003). The morphological terminology and setal notation follow Lindquist (1996). The generic key by Amrine et al.
(2003) was used for the genus identification. Different body parts were imaged by using an auto-montage software
system (Syncroscopy, Cambridge, UK) attached to a phase contrast microscope (DM2500, Leica®, Germany). All
measurements are given in micro-meters (μm). The measurements of the holotype are followed by measurements
of the paratypes as ranges between parentheses. The plant samples were identified by the Department of Botany at
College of Science, King Saud University (KSU). All collected specimens, along with the holotype and paratypes of
new species were deposited at King Saud Museum of Arthropods (KSMA), Acarology section, Department of Plant
Protection, College of Food and Agriculture Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Results

Family Diptilomiopidae Keifer

Subfamily Diptilomiopinae Keifer

Diagnosis. Legs empodia deeply divided (Amrine et al. 2003).

Genus Diptilomiopus Nalepa

Type species: Diptilomiopus javanicus Nalepa, 1916.

Diagnosis. Based on the Amrine et al. 2003, and Liu et al. 2019.
Prodorsal shield typically marked by a network design; both legs with genua absent, femoral and tibial setae
absent in both legs, tarsal setae ft‘ on leg II absent, coxal setae 1b absent, setae 1a and 2a present, scapular tubercles
can be present or absent, if present then small and placed ahead of rear shield margin, scapular setae absent.

Diptilomiopus bahaensis sp. nov.

urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:FE416A16-CFA9-4DC5-8A1F-8EAEE34CB8C3
(Figs 1–3)

Diagnosis (Female). Prodorsal ornamentation manifest complete network of cells; central cell without median
lines; small rounded scapular tubercles located ahead of rear shield margin, ventral semi-annuali with simple round
microtubercles and ornamentation on coxae I–II with granules; tarsal empodium deeply divided (7 rayed on each
side).

Description

Female (n = 14) Body fusiform (Figures 1D, 2DL), 260 (240–280, including gnathosoma), 78 (69–85) wide, 68
(65–70) thick; dark yellow in life. Gnathosoma, 58 (56–60), projecting downwards, cheliceral stylets 64 (62–68),
pedipalp coxal setae (ep) 2 (1–2), dorsal pedipalp genual setae (d) 3 (3–4), palp tarsal ventral setae (v) 5 (4–5).
Prodorsal shield (Figure 3AD), 35 (33–38) long, 61 (58–64) wide, frontal lobe absent; prodorsal ornamentation
manifest complete network of cells; three rows of cells: 12 cells (six cells on each side) in anterior row, six cells
(three cells on each side) at center row, two cells in posterior row. A central cell without median lines, median line
connected with admedian and submedian lines by transverse lines at the anterior of 1/3 of prodorsal shield, small

96 · Zootaxa 5375 (1) © 2023 Magnolia Press KHAN ET AL.

FIGURE 1. Diptilomiopus bahaensis sp. nov. Female: D. Dorsum; V. Venter, Scale bars: 10 µm.

rounded scapular tubercles located ahead of rear shield margin, (sc tubercle) 27 (24–27) apart; scapular setae (sc)
absent. Coxigenital region (Figure 3GF), with 6 (5–6) semiannuli between coxae and genitalia, anterolateral setae
on coxisternum І (1b) absent; coxae I and II both with granules/ ornaments, proximal setae on coxisternum І (1a) 14
(15–18), 6 (5–6) apart; proximal setae on coxisternum ІІ (2a) 45 (41–50), 24 (23–26) apart. Prosternal apodeme 5
(4–6). Leg І (Figure 3L1) 31 (30–33); length, femur 16 (15–18), basiventral femoral setae (bv) absent; genu absent;
tibia 8 (5–6), paraxial tibial setae (l‘) absent, tarsus 7 (8–11), paraxial fastigial tarsal setae long, (ft‘) 39 (36–43),
antaxial fastigial tarsal setae (ft‘‘) 43 (39–47); seta (u‘) 11 (9–12), tarsal empodium (em) 7 (6–8), deeply divided,
7 rayed on each side, tarsal solenidion (ω) 7 (6–8), knobbed. Leg ІІ (Figure 3L2), 29 (28–32), femur 16 (14–16),
basiventral femoral setae (bv) absent; genu absent; tibia 5 (4–5); tarsus 8 (7–9), setae (ft‘) absent, setae (ft‘‘) 28 (26–
31) seta (u‘) 5 (5–8) tarsal empodium (em) 8 (7–9), deeply divided, each seven rayed, tarsal solenidion (ω) 7 (6–8),

A new species of the genus Diptilomiopus Nalepa Zootaxa 5375 (1) © 2023 Magnolia Press · 97
FIGURE 2. Diptilomiopus bahaensis sp. nov. Female: DL. Dorso Lateral, Scale bars: 10 µm.

FIGURE 3. Diptilomiopus bahaensis sp. nov. Female: AD. prodorsal shield; CF. coxigenital area; EM. empodium; IG. internal
genitalia; L1. leg І; L2. leg II; Scale bars: 5 µm for AD, CF, L1, L2; 2.5 µm for EM, and IG.

98 · Zootaxa 5375 (1) © 2023 Magnolia Press KHAN ET AL.

knobbed (Figure 3EM). Opisthosoma dorsally with 68 (65–73) annuli simple (Figure 2DL); with three ridges,
mid-dorsal ridge shorter than lateral ridges, ended in a wide furrow; ventrally with 78 (76–81) semiannuli, with
small, rounded microtubercles; last 9–11 ventral semiannuli with elongated, linear micortubercles; lateral setae c2
absent; setae d 31 (29–34), 50 (48–53) apart; on ventral semiannulus 29 (27–32); setae e 21 (19–24), 23 (21–25)
apart; on ventral semiannulus 46 (44–49); setae f 31 (29–35), on 11th ventral semiannulus from rear, 25 (25–28)
apart; accessory setae h1 minute, setae h2 50 (47–56) (Figure 1V). Genital coverflap: 24 (23–25), 28 (24–30) wide,
genital seta (3a) 7 (6–8), 21 (19–22) apart; coverflap smooth but basal part with granules. Internal genitalia (Figure
3IG), Spermathecae ovoid, oriented posterolaterad; spermathecal tubes relatively short; transverse genital apodeme
trapezoidal, distally folded.
Etymology. The name of the new species (bahaensis) refers to the name of the locality ‘‘Baha’’ from where the
type specimens were collected.
Type material. Holotype female, and 13 paratypes female, Ficus carica L. (Moraceae), Al-Baha, Saudi Arabia,
20°3‘50.969“N, 41°28‘26.972“E, 19 October 2019, coll. Eid M. Khan.
Relation to the host plants. Vagrant on abaxial surface of leaf. No apparent damage symptoms to the host
foliage were observed.
Remarks. Diptilomiopus bahaensis sp. nov., is morphologically close to the D. racemosae (Chandrapatya and
Boczek, 2001) by the presence of scapular setal position and central cells without median line. However, the new
species differs from the later by the shape of ventral semi-annuali with microtubercles (simple rounded vs. spine
like) and ornamentation on coxae II (with granules vs. without granules ).

Key to species of the family Diptilomiopidae associated with the plant family Moraceae

1. Empodium entire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Subfamily Rhyncaphytoptinae. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

- Empodium deeply divided . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Subfamily Diptilomiopinae. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2. Coxae setae 1b absent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Genus ChakrabartiellaC. ficusis (Chakrabarti, Ghosh & Das)
- Coxae setae 1b present. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Femoral setae absent from leg I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Genus Catarhinus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. mori Huang
- Femoral setae present on both legs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Dorsal annuli uneven, laterally irregular serrate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Genus Quadracus. . . . . . . Q. cudraniae Kaung
- Dorsal annuli uniformly even, laterally not serrate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Prodorsal shield separated from 1st dorsal annulus by deep cleft, lateral annular margin with strong pointed projection. . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Genus Peralox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P. cudraniae Kuang and Hong
- Prodorsal shield not separated from 1st dorsal annulus; lateral annular margin not as above . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Dorsal annuli subequal dorsoventrally. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Genus Rhinophytoptus . . . . . . . R. broussonetiae Kaung
- Dorsal annuli broader than ventral annuli. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Genus Rhyncaphytoptus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Median, admedian and submedian lines incomplete. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. ficifoliae Keifer
- Median, admedian and submedian lines complete. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. Median and admedian are connected by transverse lines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
- Median and admedian are without transverse lines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. Two transverse lines joining median and admedian lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. zhongshani Zhao & Kaung
- Single transverse line joining median and admedian lines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. taihangensis Xue & Hong
10. Coxal areas without granules, annuli with spines like micortubercles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. caricae Zhao & Kuang
- Coxal areas with granules, annuli with rounded micortubercles or absent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11. Dorsal annul without micortubercles, h1 present. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. mori Liu & Kuang
- Dorsal annuli with rounded micortubercles, h1 absent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. papyriferae Xue & Hong
12. Scapular setae present; minute in size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
- Scapular setae absent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
13. Genu setae absent from leg II. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Genus Neorhynacus . . . . . . . . N. lakoochii Pandir & Chakrabarti
- Genu setae present on both legs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Genus Apodiptacus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. cordiformis Keifer
14. Legs genu segment absent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Genus Diptilomiopus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
- Legs genu segment present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
15. Scapular setal insertion absent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
- Scapular setal insertion present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
16. Female coverflap with longitudinal lines; central cell with admedian lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. ficusis Chakrabarti & Mondal
- Female coverflap smooth; central cell without median and admedian lines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
17. Female genital area anteriorly granulated; second medial row with 13 cells. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. indicus Chakrabarti & Pandit
- Female genital area anteriorly smooth; second medial row with 7 cells. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. ficifolius (Boczek & Oleczek)
18. Central cell with median lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

A new species of the genus Diptilomiopus Nalepa Zootaxa 5375 (1) © 2023 Magnolia Press · 99
- Central cell without median lines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
19. Each branch of empodium multi-rayed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. broussonetus Liu, Yuan, & Xue
- Each branch of empodium 5-6 rayed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
20. Leg tarsal seta (ft’, ft’’) divided . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. sabahus Liu, Yuan, & Xue
- Leg tarsal seta (ft’, ft’’) simple. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. ficivorus Sarkar
21. Coxal area smooth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
- Coxal area granulated/punctate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
22. Second row of mid shield with 5 cells; genital area with few granules. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. cumingis Huang
- Second row of mid shield with 3 cells; genital area entirely smooth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. asperis Gosh & Chakrabarti
23. Genital shield entirely smooth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. benjaminae (Boczek & Chandrapatya)
- Genital shield granulated. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
24. Dorsal annulai smooth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
- Dorsal annulai with pointed micortubercles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
25. Only coxae I granulated, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. racemosae (Chandrapatya & Boczek)
- Both coxae granulated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. bahaensis sp. nov. Alatawi & Khan
26. Setae h1 absent; empodium 6 rayed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. indogangeticus Chakrabarti, Sur, & Sarkar
- Setae h1 present; empodium 8 rayed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. ficus Attiah
27. All coxal setae present. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Genus Asetadiptacus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. emiliae Carmona
- Coxal setae 1b absent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Genus Vimola. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V. artocarpae (Mohanasundaram)

Ecological notes

Twenty-eight species (including the new species), belonging to eleven genera of Diptilomiopidae, associated
with six genera of Moraceae (Table 1). These diptilomiopid mite species are mainly reported from India, China,
Thailand, Malaysia, Portugal, USA, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia (Amrine & de Lillo unpublished databases).
Among the two subfamilies i.e. Rhyncaphytoptinae and Diptilomiopinae, two genera Rhyncaphytoptus and
Diptilomiopus, respectively, were diversely reported on wide variety of Moraceae host plants (Chakrabarti et
al. 2019). Rhyncaphytoptus ficifoliae is abundantly recorded from different regions of the world, infesting Ficus
carica. However, twelve species belonging to the genus Diptilomiopus were infesting four plant genera i.e. Ficus,
Streblus, Morus, and Broussonetia (Amrine & de Lillo unpublished databases). The geographic distribution and
host association essentially depicts the importance of the Diptilomiopus species.

Acknowledgments

We would like to express sincere thanks to Dr. J.W. Amrine Jr (West Virginia University Morgantown, USA), Dr.
Carlos Holger Wenzel Flechtmann (University of São Paulo, Brazil), and Dr. Xiao-Feng Xue (Nanjing Agriculture
University, China) for providing literature. We are also grateful to the two anonymous reviewers for their invaluable
suggestions.

Funding

The authors would like to extend their sincere appreciation for funding this research work through project number
(RSPD2023R807), King Saud University, Riyadh Saudi Arabia.

References

Alatawi, F.J. & Halawa, A.M. (2011) New records of eriophyoid mites (Acari: Prostigmata: Eriophyoidea) from Saudi Arabia.
Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences, 14 (2), 112–117.
https://doi.org/10.3923/pjbs.2011.112.117
Amrine, J.W. Jr., Stasny, T.A.H. & Flechtmann, C.H.W. (2003) Revised keys to world genera of Eriophyoidea (Acari:
Prostigmata). Indira Publishing House, West Bloomfield, Michigan, 244 pp.
Attiah, H.H. (1967) Two new species of mites on figs from Egypt, Bulletin de la Sociѐtѐ Royale Entomologique d’Ѐgypte, 51,
1–5.

100 · Zootaxa 5375 (1) © 2023 Magnolia Press KHAN ET AL.

Boczek, J. & Chandrapatya, A. (1992) Studies on Eriophyid mites (Acari: Eriophyoidea). XI. Bull. Bulletin of the Polish
Academy of Sciences. Biological Sciences, 40 (4), 269–277.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01647959208683960
Boczek, J. & Chandrapatya, A. (2002) Studies on Eriophyoid Mites (Acari: Eriophyoidea). XLIX. Bulletin of the Polish Academy
of Sciences. Biological Sciences, 50 (1), 25–36.
Boczek, J. & Oleczek, M. (1988) Six new species of eriophyid mites (Acarida: Eriophyoidea). Roczniki Nauk Rolniczych, E
(Ochrona Roślin), 17 (1), 107–118.
Carmona, M.M. (1970) Asetadiptacus, a new genus; family Rhyncaphytoptidae (Acarina: Eriophyoidea). Acarologia, 12 (3),
527–530.
Chakrabarti, S., Ghosh, B. & Das, B. (1992) New genera and species of Rhyncaphytoptidae (Eriophyoidea) with key to
subfamilies and genera. Acarologia, 33 (1), 75–84.
Chakrabarti, S. & Mondal S. (1983) An account of the genus Diptilomiopus Nalepa (Acarina: Eriophyoidea) from India with
descriptions of three new species and key to Indian species. Acarologia, 24 (3), 299–307.
Chakrabarti, S., Sur, S. & Sarkar, S. (2019) Two new species of Diptilomiopus Nalepa (Acari: Eriophyoidea) from India.
Acarologia, 59 (3), 383–394.
https://doi.org/10.24349/acarologia/20194337
Chakrabarti, S. & Pandit, R.K. (1996) Two new Rhyncaphytoptid mites (Acari: Eriophyoidea) from West Bengal, India.
Entomon, 21(1), 103–116.
Chandrapatya, A. & Boczek, J. (2001) Studies on eriophyoid mites (Acari: Eriophyoidea). XLVI. Bulletin of the Polish
Academy of Sciences. Biological Sciences, 49 (2), 91–102.
Craemer, C., Amrine, J.W. Jr., Childers, C.C., Rogers, M.E. & Achor, D.S. (2017) A new eriophyoid mite species, Diptilomiopus
floridanus (Acari: Eriophyoidea: Diptilomiopidae), from citrus in Florida, USA. Systematic and Applied Acarology, 22 (3),
386–402.
https://doi.org/10.11158/saa.22.3.5
de Lillo, E. & Amrine, J.W. Jr. (2011) Computerized catalog of the Eriophyoidea. [unpublished database]
Ghosh, N.K. & Chakrabarti, S. (1989) Four new species of eriophyid mites (Acari: Eriophyoidea) from West Bengal, India.
Indian Journal of Acarology, 11 (1–2), 67–75.
Huang, K.W. (2001) The eriophyid mites of Taiwan: description of twenty-five species from Walapi. Bulletin National Museum
of Natural Science, No. 13, 65–93.
Keifer, H.H. (1939) Eriophyid Studies III. Bulletin California Department Agriculture, 28, 144–162.
Keifer, H.H. (1960) Eriophyid Studies B-1. Bulletin California Department Agriculture, 1960, 1–20.
Kuang, H.Y. (1986) A new genus, six new species and a new record of the family Rhyncaphytoptidae from Fujian, China
(Acariformes: Rhyncaphytoptidae). Wuyi Science Journal, 6 (12), 111–119.
Kuang, H.Y., Hong, X.Y. & Cheng, L.S. (1991) A new genus, four new species and two new subspecies of the subfamily
Rhynchaphytoptinae from China (Acari: Acariformes: Rhynchaphytoptidae). Acta Zootaxonomica Sinica, 16 (1), 54–60.
Lindquist, E.E. (1996) External Anatomy and Systematics. In: Lindquist, E.E., Sabelis, M.W. & Bruin, J. (Eds.), Eriophyoid
mites. Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. World Crop Pests. Vol. 6. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, pp.
3–31.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1572-4379(96)80023-6
Liu, M.P. & Kuang, H.Y. (1998) Three new species of the family Diptilomiopidae from China. Acta Zootaxonomica Sinica, 23
(1), 25–29.
Liu, Q., Yuan, Y.M. & Xue, X.F. (2019) Nine new eriophyoid mite species from the genus Diptilomiopus (Acari: Diptilomiopidae).
Systematic and Applied Acarology, 24 (7), 1177–1224.
https://doi.org/10.11158/saa.24.7.6
Mohanasundaram, M. (1981) Record of Rhyncaphytoptid gall mites (Rhyncaphytoptidae: Eriophyoidea) from South India.
Oriental Insects, 15 (1), 45–55.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00305316.1981.10434469
Monfreda, R., Nuzzaci, G. & de Lillo, E. (2007) Detection, extraction, and collection of eriophyoid mites. Zootaza, 1662 (1),
35–43.
https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.1662.1.4
Nalepa, A. (1916) Neue Gallmilben (32. Fortsetzung). Anzeiger der kaiserlichen Akademie Wissenschaften Mathematische-
naturwissenschaftliche Klasse, Wien, 53, 283–284.
Pandit, R.K. & Chakrabarti, S. (2007) Three new eriophyid species (Acari: Eriophyidae [Acari: Eriophyoidea] from north
Bengal, India. Acarologia, XLVII [47] (3–4), 143–148.
Sarkar, S. (2011) Eriophyoid mites (Acari) of Malda and Dakhin Dinajpur of West Bengal, India. PhD. Thesis, University of
Kalyani, Kalyani, 160 pp.
The Plant List (2023) Version 1.1. Published on the Internet. Available from: http://www.theplantlist.org/ (accessed 24 May
2023)
Xue, X.F. & Hong, X.Y. (2005) Five new species of Diptilomiopidae from China (Acari: Eriophyoidea). Zootaxa, 1055 (1),
49–59.
https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.1055.1.4

A new species of the genus Diptilomiopus Nalepa Zootaxa 5375 (1) © 2023 Magnolia Press · 101
Zhao, J. & Kuang, H.Y. (1998) Three new species of Rhyncaphytoptidae from China (Acari: Eriophyoidea). Entomotaxonomia,
20 (3), 230–234. [in Chinese with English summary]
Qin, F., Tan, M., Wang, Y. & Wang, G. (2022) Three new species of Diptilomiopus Nalepa (Acari: Eriophyoidea) from South
China. Systematic and Applied Acarology, 27 (3), 511–524.
https://doi.org/10.11158/saa.27.3.9
Qin, F.P., Yao, G. & Wang, G.Q. (2023) Two new Trimeroptes species (Acari: Diptilomiopidae) from Guangdong Province,
South China. International Journal of Acarology, 48 (8), 637–644.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01647954.2022.2161629
Varandi, F.R., Irani-Nejad, K.H. & Lotfollahi, P. (2022) Two new Rhyncaphytoptus species (Acariformes: Eriophyoidea:
Diptilomiopidae) from Fagaceae in northern Iran. Systematic and Applied Acarology, 27 (4), 625–633.
https://doi.org/10.11158/saa.27.4.1
Xue, X.F. & Li, N. (2020) Two new species of diptilomiopid mites (Acari: Eriophyoidea) from China. Zootaxa, 4896 (4),
560–570.
https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4896.4.7

102 · Zootaxa 5375 (1) © 2023 Magnolia Press KHAN ET AL.