Association of uropodid, prodinychid, polyaspidid, antenno- phorid, sejid, microgynid, and zerconid mites with ants PEKKA T. LEHT]NF,N Lehtinen. Pekka T.: Association of uropodid, prodinvchid, prolyaspidid, antennophorid, sejid. microgynid, and zerconid mitcs with ants. [Myrgaster inom kvatsterfamil jema Uropodidae, Prodinychidae, Polyaspididae. Antennophoridae, Sejidae, Microgynidae och Zcrconidac.]- Ent. Tidskr. 108: 13-20. Unei, Sweden 1987. ISSN 0013-886x, The obligatorily myrmecophilous fauna of North Europe include one species of. Anten- nophorus (Antennophoridae) and about 20 species of Uropodidae, representing the sub- families Oplitinae ( Oplitis and Urodiscel/a), Trachyuropo dinae (Urotrachytes and U rojanetia), and a few species in other subfamilies (Phaulodinychus in Uropodinaeland Uroobovella, Oodinychtts, ar,d Trematurella in Trematurinae). Polyaspidid taxa are represented only by deviating populatbns of Dipolyaspis trsracezs. while various generally non-myrmecophilous prodinychids have invaded ant nests locally (Prodinychus flagelliger, Dinychus carinatus, D. arcuutut). and in some case formed huge populations (Trachyxenura pyriformis, Dinychus septentionalit). Many zerconids are numerous in ant nests, but only Prozercon traegardhi anda new species from SW Finland show a distinct preference. Morphological adaptations concerning mouthparts and larval design for ant symbiosis are found in Antennophoridae and in the uropodid subfamilies Oplitinae and Trachyuropodinae. These two subfamilies share only a few parallel adaptations, and they have evolved from differ- ent uropodid groups. Most myrmccophilous mite species of Nonh Europe prefer a single ant host. Nests of Formicinae, esp. Ltr;ius (Chthonolastus, Cqutolasius & s.str.), Dendrolasius, Csmponotus, and Formica are distinctly preferred to Myrmicinae (except Tetamorium\. Both ants and mites have seemingly isolated populations, which could be classified as species in stalu nascendi. Many of these mite populations with different ant hosts are also allopatric ard here trcatcd as subspecies. All European species of the Oplitis ovalala-group live in myr- micine nests ( Ierramoium, Messor, and Myrmica). A detailed analysis of the taxonomy of thc uropodid guests of different populations of Formica er.recra most probably will help in the taxonomic reevaluation of the latter. The names used in this paper are based on a recent revision of these groups, including also the checking of all Berlese types. Pekko T. Lehtinen, Zoological Museum, Department of Biology, University of Turku, S F-205 00 T urk u, Finland. Introduction Canestrini & R. Canestrini (1882), G. Canestrini The presence of a ich mite fauna in the nests of & Berlese (1884), G. Canestrini (1884), Michael various European ants was wcll documented by (1891 & 1894 a & b), Karpelles (1891), Moniez numerous authors ca. 100 years ago and first men- (1892 & 1894), Wasmann (1894, 1897 a-b, 1898, tioned by Forel (1874) without identification of I tt99 & 1902), Leonardi ( 1895 & 1896), Trouessart the mitcs. Michael (1894b) and Wasmann (1899) (1U96 & 1902), Janet (ltt97 a & b), Karawaicw suggcsted that many of these mites are dependent (1906), and Kneissl (1907, 1908). on certain ant species or at least strongly prefer Although myrmecophilous species of mites their nests as the microhabitat. wcre described by many acarologists, the main Basic data for myrmecophilous Uropodoidea opus is Berlese's Acari Mirmecophili (1904b), at was presented by Haller (1877 & 1882), Lubbock least as far as the Uropodina is concerned - the (ltt8l ). Berlese (1881, 1882-1892, 1904 a & b), G. main group discussed here. Later, Donisthorpe 14 Pekka T. Lehinen (1927: British Isles), Balogh (1938: Hungary), single stone or any other limited area may include Storkan (1940) and Pecina (1980: Czecho- small nests of many Myrmica, Leptothorax, and slovakia), Greim (1952: S Germany) and Wis- lasius spp. In this way, thc guests of different ant nicwski (1979c: Poland), have published locallists species may become mixed in the sample. of myrmecophilous mites. North European myr- Secondly. many authors have listed the host mecophilous uropodids and polyaspidids havc species of ditferent mites without any quantitative been recentlv described by Greim (in Hirschmann information. Let's take an illuminating examplc. 1957), Hirschmann & Zirngicbl-Nicol (1961), If we have an old large anthill of Formica exsecta. Wisniewski (1979a. 1980a & b), Pecina (191t0), throughout crowded with the very striking, nicc and Hirschmann (1984). Krasinskaya (1961) red uropodid Urojunetia coccinea (500-15(X) speci- studied the tife historics of some of the species dis- mens per liter), it is likcly that single specimens cussed here. are accidentally transported by the ants to the The European uropodids have not been neighbourhood. When we then find single speci- taxonomically revised so far. Names used here are mens of U. coccinea within the closeby anthill of based on a recent. as yet unpublished revision that Formica aquilonia or under the stones. where Ior- also includes checking of all Berlese types of thc mica ftt^sca or Lasiu.c riger happen to have their mite groups discussed here. ncsts. these observations don't prove that the The published information about North Euro- species belong to the local host species of U. coc- pean myrmecophilous mites is scanty, and the cinea. Third, dead specimens of many arthropod majority of the common widespread species were species are actively transported to the nest hy the never reported from any of the North European ants. countries. Thor (1900) dcscribed a new species, Uropotla from Norway. It has not formicarum Dispersal and feeding of myrmecophilous mites bccn cited by Central European authors and it is hcrc synomymize d with Oodinychus ovalis (C . L. The mode of living and dispersal of myrmecophil- Koch). Triigirdh (1942) described a new uropodid ous mites is realized according to three differcnt species. Trematttrella stylifera, and stated (1945) strategies. that it is associated with a species of the Formica 1. Phoretic dispersal of adult specimens, Adult ruft-group from Sweden. Hc also proposed a new specimens of Oplitis and Urodiscella are regularly family, Trematurcllidac (1944), for the species. attached to thc protibial comb of their host ant, TrigArdh (1943) also presented a review, where both workers and alates. This behaviour was first thc family Antennophoridae was discussed in dcpicted by Janet (1897a). Adult specimens of morc detail, however, with most examples from Antennophorus are regularly attached below or on tropical and other non-European genera. Hc the head of the ants, and are dispersed in this way. mentioned the phoretic dispersal of uropodid Both the oplitine species and Antennophorus deutonymphs, but exemplified from other insects. make use of this close attachment for their feeding mainly Coleoptera. No mesostigmatid mite from and are more generally classified as commensals. n€sts is previously known from Finland. What they eat is subject to opinions, but Oplitis ^nt "I r.c cvaluation of thc descriptions of the associ- spp. are usually regardcd mainly as feeding of the ations between different species of mites with the minute skin particlcs and other organic debris ant spccies were affected by the obscurity of both combed by their brushlike, strongly specialized mitc and ant taxonomy at the time of the pionccrs mouth parts. of this field (Leonardi 1896, Wasmann 1t199, 2. Phoretic dispercal by deulonymphs. Many Donisthorpe 1927). Thc current specific concepts adults of myrmecophilous and non-myrmecophil- of the Formica rufa grorp date back only to Yar- ous species of the uropodid subfamilies Uro- row (1955), and, in my opinion, there are still podinae and Trematurinae and the nominate many unsolved problems. The yellow species of polyaspidid subfamily are never attached to in- /,asius have quite often been misidentified, not sects. Most of them, however, have a phoretic only by acarologists, but also by myrmecologists. deutonymph that is firmly attached to a flying in- There are also two additional sources of error in sect to secure an effective dispersal. the published data about the association between Phaulodinychus hamulifer, the oddJooking guest mite and ant specics. First, a sample from under a of Lasius niger, throughout covered by club- Association of mites with ants 15 shaped strong setae, can easily be collected by Synocoets were originatly defined as guests tol- sweep-netting at the swarming of its host. Work- erated by ants, while symphiles as guests actively ers. most probably. play no role in the dispersal of and friendly treated by ants. Much additional data this species. The mode of dispersal of the myr- about reciprocal relations of different arthropod mecophilous populations of Dipolyaspis testaceus groups have been accumulated since Wasmann's and Oodinltchus spatuliferus has not been ob- time, and the relationships are best described in served, but most probably their deutonymphs arc general terms of cocvolution. phoretic on swarming Camponotus herculeanus. The term myrmecophilous is now used as a gen- These specialized populations most Iikely repre- eral term for organisms distinctly preferring ant sent evolving new taxa, although no undisputed nests, but this term doesn't describe thc mode of morphological differences are present. association in detail. All authors that have made Manv species of these subfamilies have two exact observations about the habits of mites in ant types