Prostigmata, Astigmata &Mesostigmata: India
This is an extract from |
Note: This article is likely to have several spelling mistakes that occurred during scanning. If these errors are reported as messages to the Facebook page, Indpaedia.com your help will be gratefully acknowledged.
Contents |
Prostigmata, Astigmata &Mesostigmata
Introduction
The mites belonging to Prostigmata. Astigmata and Mesostigmata (excluding soil forms) have achieved tremendous importance because of their manifold economic importance in agriculture, poultryt medical and veterinary sciences as well as in public health and, therefore, have drawn the global attention. Many members of Prostigmata are very serious pests of agricultural, horticultural and commercial crops and damage directly by feeding and also indirectly by ac~ing as vectors of a dozen plant viral diseases and all these reduce the yield to as much as 50-80% causing economic loss to the tune of several crores of rupees in India. Many members of Astigmata as well as some Pmstigmata and Mesostigmata act as parasites of both vertebrates and invertebrates.
Many of those, which parasitize vertebrates also act as vectors. co-operators and akgravators of different types of bacterial, fungal, viral, protozoan, filarial and other diseases. SOfne of the mesostigmatids and prostigmatids directly suck the blood of vertebrates (including man) and some astigmatids are skin parasites and all these result in itching causing pain, anaemia, pneuRlonia, tumors, scabies, nodules, skin thickening, loss of hair, loss of weight and vigour, etc. Some even occur in house dust and are responsible for the causation of different respiratory allergies including bronchial asthma, rhinities, etc. to man.
A large number of mites of all the three orders occur in stored products of all kinds and cause enormous loss by feeding and destroying the products. However, not all are our enemies as there are many who are our friends too. Three families of Mesogtimata and at least five fami.lies of Prostigmata are definitely known as efficient and useful predators of the plant feeding mites and can successfully suppress their population below economic injury levels. Likewise, there are some water mites which are known tn'feed upon mosquito larvae and thus check their population. The one most important character which separates these grQuP of mites, is the position of stigmata (respiratory aperture) which is present lateral to corae 2nd and 4th in Mesostigmata, at the base of chelicera or gnathosoma in Prostigmata and altogether absent in Astigmata.
These mites are soft bodied, size varying from 0.25 mm (eriophyids and tarsonemids) to 2-3 mm (trobiculids and trombidiids), usually have 4 pairs of legs in adults (exception: Fam. Eriophyidae or gall mites with 2 pairs of legs and podapolipodidae, insect associated mites having 3 pairs of legs in adults, both under Prostigmata). Body may be white or brownish as in many Astigmata/Mesostigmata, .brightly coloured or variously coloured as in many Prostigmata, or brilliantly coloured as in water mites. Body is normally round, oval or slightly elongated but most peculiar among mites is the eriophyid mites (gall mites) which are elongated and worm-like.' The habitats occupied by members of these orders are diverse ranging from bottom of ocean to snow-clad mountains and so also is their food habits ranging from phytophagous, saprophagous, fungivorous, coprophagous, necterophagous, bacterophagous, predators, blood suckers, lymph feeders, etc. Due to their tiny and obscure nature although this fauna was very inadequately explored earlier but recently due to their growing economic importance and development of more sophisticated optical instruments, more and more studies are being taken up in these groups specially during the last two decades and the number of species what was known in these three groups from India upto 1973, (prasad, 1974) has almost doubled during the past two decades. Out of the total acarine fauna known from India, which is estimated to be around 2000, these account for around' 1500 species. Though no attempt has been made by anyone to estimate the total number of species from the world in these 3 groups but according to Krantz (1978) the total acarine species known from the world is 30,000.
Historical Resume
i) Pre-1900
Only 5 papers were published during this period dealing with 3 species of mites, one each under Tetranychidae, Eriophyidae and Tenuipalpidae, all from tea plants in Assam and belonged to Prostigmata. Peal (1868) was the first to report a mite from India when he recorded a species of Tetranychus on tea in Assam. Subsequently, Green (1890) and Christison (1893) reported one species each of Eriophyidae and Tenuipalpidae on tea. Watt (1898) brought out an account of tea pests of India which included these three mites also.
ii) 1901-1947
58 Papers were published dwing this period, of which 16 were devoted to plant mites (dealing with 25 species), 1 to stored product mite (1 sp.) 1. to insect associated mite (5 spp.), 4 to water mites (49 spp.) and 3 to vertebrate associated mites (dealing with about 30 species). These included not only new report of species but also descriptions of some new species chiefly in parasitic mites, water olites and plant mites belonging to Prostigmata, Astigmata and Mesostigmata. The noteworthy publications during this period are:
Plant mites: Wood Mason (1901), Hirst (1924), Cherian (1931, 1938), Massee (1933) and Rahman and Sapra (1940) -dealing mostly with tetranychilds and eriophyids (Prostigmata).
Water mites: Daday (1908), Viets (1926), Walter (1928), Lundblad (1934) and Vitzthum (1942).
Parasitic mites: Hirst (1926), Abdussalam (1941), Radford (1946) on reptile parasitic mites; Hirst (1932), Abdussalam (1939), Sen (1940), Radford (1946) on bird parasitic mites and Oudemans (1914), Hirst (1915, 1923, 1924), Ewing (1928, 1937), Abdussalam (1939), Radford (1946, 1948) on mammal parasitic mites.
Other publications dealt with the records of species and some were on etiology of the various diseases caused by these mites to' man and his domesticated animals and birds.
iii) 1948-1990
With more realisation of the importance of mites in agriculture, medical and veterinary sciences and invention of more and more sophisticated optical instruments and other aids made the study of mites more elaborate and critical. The fust twenty years i.e., during. fifties and sixties, the progress was not that rapid as it was in the seventies and eighties as is evident from the fact that while about 740 papers were published during the last two decades that could add over 750 species of these three groups, only 769 species belonging to 277 genera and 102 families were known 'till 1973 (Prasad, 1974) and that raised the total now to 1480 species belonging to 394 genera under 97 families. Not only mites having economic importance received attention but also many whose economic importance is still doubtful were also worked out for the exploration of mite fauna of India.
It is during this period that concerted efforts were made to study various other aspects like morphology, histology, biology, ecology, etiology, chemical control, biological control, karyology and biochemical aspects of some economically important groups besi~es taxonomy and faunistic surveys and all these resulted in reaching our knowledge to a new height
As many as 75 papers were published during 1948-1960, of which 30 were on plant mites,S papers on insect associated mites and about 40 papers on parasitic mites dealing with mites from reptiles, rodents and other mammals. In plant mites, no serious effort was made for starting the critical taxonomic studies and papers of these period were devoted mainly to records of new agricultural pests/predators. Rao (1951), Puttarudriah and Channa Basavanna (1956), Dutta (1958), Evans (1953), Narayanan &Khot (1959), etc. are some of such publications. Whereas, in parasitic mites, some important contributions were made on Laelapidae, Macronyssidae, Myobiidae and
Spinturnicidae associated with bats and other mammals (Hirigaudar &Bal, 1955, 1956; Strandman &Wharton, 1958 on Macronyssidae; Alwar &Lalitha, 1960 on Laelapidae of rodents and Womersley, 1952 on trombiculids. Wharton &Fuller (1952) listed the trombiculids from India while Audy &Nadchatram (1957), Audy &Womersley (1957), Womersley &Audy (1957), Traub &Morrow (1957), etc. either reported or described many new species of trombiculids from different hosts. Rao &Hiregaudar (1958), Hiregaudar (1958), Audy &Womersley (1957), Womersley et al. (1957), etc. contributed on reptile parasitic mites while Singh and Adalakh (1958) and Peshwani (1960) dealt with mites from honey bees and grasshoppers, re spec tivel y.
Invertebrate associates: Narayana &Ghai (1961) reported a Melichares from Diptera, Krantz &Khot (1,962) reported Treatia from Hemiptera, Krantz (1965, 1967), Lindquist (1969), Bhattacharyya (1971) dealt with mites from beetles; Prasad (1973) described a moth mite while a number of papers were published on bee mites like: Delfinado (1973), Atwal &Goyal (1971), Putatunda et al., (1984), Putatunda & Kapil (1987), Kapil & Aggarwal (1987), Aggarwal & Sihag (1988), Mathur (1990), etc. The other contributions are Rawat et al. 1981 on Bochartia (Erytbraeidae) infesting Hemiptera, Kulkarnt et al. (1981) on erythraeid occurring on sorghum shoot fly; Sudarsanam &Murthy (1990) infesting pseudoscorpion, etc. Recently, Mohansundaram and his co-workers (1990), Basit (1990) and Patel et al. (1990) recorded many new mites including undescribed species from various groups of insects and through all these as many as 46 spp. are known as per break up given below:
Vertebrate associates : Bird associates : Contributions came from Lalitha & Alwar (1961,1971,1972,1973), Alwar &Lalitha (1961,1963), Gaud (1961), Sen &Fletcher (1962), Gaud &Mouchet (1963), Alwar (1970), At yeo et al. (1972) etc., on feather mites of pOUltry birds (Megninia, Astigmata); Fain (1963-1969) on ereynetid mites and Kapur and Kaur (1975) on several ectoparasitic species of birds. Recently, Putatunda et al. (1981), D'souza &Jagannath et al. (1986) and Putatunda et al. (1990) contributed on exploration of bird mite fauna belonging to Prostigmata: Pyemotidae, Chcyletidae, Tarsonemidae, Cheyletiellidae, Syringophilidae; Astigmata: Analgidae, Acaridae, Dermoglyphidae, Freyanidae, Protolichidae, Gabucinidae and Mesostigmata: Macronyssidae, Rhinoyssidae, etc.
Reptile associates: Mitchell &Nadchatram (1966) and Nadchatram &Joshee (1966) made some studies on mites occurring on gecko.
Mammal associates: Domrow (1962), Mitchell & Nadchatram (1966), Mitchell et al. (1966), Verma (1969), Kulkarni (1973,1988), Kulkarni et al. (1979) on the trombiculid mites from mammals; Mitchell (1970), Advani &Vazirani (1981) on bat mites.
Through all these, 327 species in following groups are known:
Plant associates: An impressive progress was made in the study of plant mites during this period as major parts of the country could be surveyed and ~that resulted in making many new records and de~riptions of new species of all the three orders. Maximum emphasis was laid on the plant feeding groups of Tetranychidae, Tenuipalpidae, Eriophyidae and Tarsonemidae, all under Prostigmata as well as on predatory groups like Phytoseiidae (Mesostigmata) and Stigmaeidae, Cunaxidae, Bdellidae, Anystidae, Tydeidae, Cheyletidae (prostigmata). In gall/blister/bud mites, (Superfamily: Eriophyoidea) the first monograph on Indian species was brought out by Channa Basavanna (1966) treating 71 species, majority being new. Thereafter, intensive and extensive explorations were undertaken by Mohansundaram (1979-1990) and Chakrabarti and Co-workers (1979-1990) and through publication of over 70 papers nearly 250 species could be added. Gupta (1985) in his Handbook on Plant mites, treated 257 species for which he provided keys, diagnosis, hosts, distribution, etc. Mohansundaram (1990) elaborately dealt with 59 species of Aceria describing 33 new species and giving keys for them.
Till date, nearly 360 species of this group are known from India. In family Tetranychidae (spider mites), one of the most injurious plant mites, the impOrtant contributions in taxonomy of this group are Manson (1963), Menon &Ghai (1968), Channa Basavanna (1971), Prasad (1975, a,b,c), Gupta (1976), Gupta &Gupta (1977-1985), Sadana and his Co-workers (1980-81), Rishi &Rather (1982-1987), Rather (1982-1987), Nassar &, Ghai (1981), etc. exploring fauna from major parts of the country including some of the remote areas like NE hill region, Andaman &Nicobar Is., Ladakh etc. Through all these till date about 100 species under 20 genera are known. In addition to taxonomy and faunistic surveys, over 100 papers have been published by different works on biology, seasonal occurrence, host preference, chemical and biological control etc. and reviewing all those is not within the scope of this report and interested workers may refer to Prasad (1974), Channa Basavanna (1981), Channa Basavanna &Viraktamath (1989), Gupta (1985), etc. Gupta (1985) dealt with 82 species of this family from India giving detail informations on diagnosis, hosts, distribution, nature of damage, bionomics and control. In family Tenuipalpidae (false spider mites), also an economically important group being agricultural pests, received considerable attention and, therefore, besides taxonomy, works on various other aspects have also been done and all those have been well reviewed by Gupta (1985), Sadana (1985) and Banerjee (1987).
The important papers are Manson (1963), Ghai (1964), Nageschandra &Channa Basavanna (1974), Channa Basavanna &Lakkundi (1977), Gupta &Ghosh (1980), Nassar &Ghai (1981), Sadana &Chabra (1980, 1982), Maninder &Ghai (1984), Ghai &Maninder (1984), Mohansundarm (1909), etc., and through all these 65 species in 10 genera are known. Gupta (1985), in his Handbook, dealt with 53 species. The family Tarsonemidae is not well worked out and only 5 species are known that are associated with plants of those Gupta (1985) dealt with four. Among the predatory plant mites, the family Phytoseiidae has received the maximum attention being recognised world over as potential predators of phytophagous mites. In sixties, a group of workers like Narayanan, Khot, Ghai, Menon, Rao and Bhattacharyya from India while Chant and Muma from USA made some contributions in this family and till end of. that decade-about 33 valid species were known from India, majority of those were described as new. Thereafter, through a series of papers numbering over 40 Gupta (1969-1989) explored this group from all over the country and in his 'Fauna' volume, the first on Indian mites, dealt with 143• species under 10 ge~era, for which he provided full descriptions and illustrations besides giving comments on biology of some important species. Recently, Rather and his co-workers from¬Kashmir also made useful studies of this group and till this time little over 150 species under 10 genera are known from India.
Biology, predator-prey reaction, effect of pesticides, etc., have also been studied for a couple of important predators, the references of some of those are available in Gupta (1985,1986,1987). Among other predatory mites under Prostigmata, viz. Stigmaeidae. Cheyletidae, Tydeidae, Bdellidae, Cunaxidae and Erythraeidae are very inadequately known and the number of species in these families (associated with plants only) are respectively, 4 spp. (Gonzalez, 1965; Gupta &Ghosh, 1980; Gupta, 1985), 3 spp.(Narayanan &Kaur, 1960; Gupta &. Ghosh, 1980, Gupta, 1985), 5 spp.(Baker, 1965; Gupta &Dhooria, 1972, 1974; Gupta and Ghosh, 1980; Dhooria, 1982; Gupta, 1985), 1 sp. (Gupta &Ghosh, 1980), 9 spp. (Gupta &.
Ghosh, 1980; Gupta, 1985) and 8 spp. (Khot, 1963-1965; Gupta, 1985). Through all these, 727 species are known as per break up given here:
Storage associates: Hughes (1961) in his book listed the mites known from India Prasad (1974) recorded 12 species while Ghai (1976) recorded 29 species from the habitat belonging to all the three groups but Astigmatid mites being dominant. Nagia and Channa Basavanna (1989) in their study reported a total of 53 species of those 24 were astigmatids, 12 were mesostigmatids and 17 were prostigmatids. A considerable amount of works on morphology, histology, etc. were done on mites of Astigmata (Lardoglyphus, Aleuroglyphus spp.) occurring on stored fishes and prawns by Pillai (1955-1957) and Vijayambika &John (1973-1981). The other important contributions in this group came from Mathur and Mathur (1983), Abrol et ale (1989), etc. Works related to seasonal occurrence, effect of abiotic factors, effect of radiation, etc are also available from India and interested workers may refer to Channa Basavanna (1981) and Channa Basavanna and Viraktamath (1989). So far, a total of 71 species are known as per break up given below:
Nest associates: So far about 68 species as per following break up are known through the works of Ramchandra Rao and Rajagopalan (1970), Gupta &Chattapadhyay (1977) and Gupta &Paul (1985, 1988). Most of these are from nests of different species of birds. Apart from that only one paper is available from nest other than bird and that is by Gupta and Bhattacharyya (1989) on mite-fauna of squirrel nests which reported 7 mesostigmatids, 3 prostigmatids and 1 astigmatid mites.
House dust associates: This includes members of Prostigmata, Astigmata and Mesostigmata. The [rrst report on house dust mites was by Krishna Rao et ale (1913) who reported a pyroglypbid mite (Astigmata) from dust at Bangalore. Subsequently, Dixjt &Mehta (1913), Gupta &Datta Ray (1915), Shivpuri et ale (1911), Dar &Gupta (1979), Dar et ale (1974, 1975), Maurya and Zamil (1981), Channa Basavanna et ale (1984, 1985), Modak et ale (1987), Tandon et ale (1989) Kumar et ale (1989), etc., made further additions to the house dust mite fauna of India and about 57 species are known as per break up given below. The most importaJ1t species causing allergies are pyroglyphids, glycyphagids and may be saproglypids, which all belong to Astigmata.
In addition, several other works are also available on seasonal occurrence, isolation of allergen from mites, comparative faunal study of different types of houses as well as different types of beds, role of mites in causing allergies, etc.
Soil associates (Prostigmata) : Gupta (1981) is the only reference available on Prostigmata occurring on soil and in that 12 species belonging to 10 genera under 4 families have been recorde4 describing new species as well as recording hitherto unknown genera and species.
Water associates: The most important contribution in Indian water mites during this period is the monograph of Cook (1961) wherein he described 173 species/subspecies belonging to different Indian regions. The majority were described as new. Later, Nayar (1969, a) Tomar & Raychoudhuri (1981,,82) also worked out the water mite fauna and described new species with erection of new genera. Other references are Robaux (1969), Rao (1970) and Kulkarni &Cherwatkar (1983) who also contributed on this group. Through all these a total of 216 species belonging to 57 genera under 23 families are known from India and all belonged to Prostigmata.
Studies from Different Environs
The members of Prostigmata, Astigmata and Mesostigmata occupy two types of habitats like terrestrial (which includes plant associates, soil associates, invertebrate associates, vertebrate associates, storage associates, dust associates and nest associates) and aquatic (including fresh water, interstitial and intertidal zones). The studies in the aforesaid environs are reviewed' below very briefly. Whil~ reviewing only the taxonomic literature are taken into consideration as the works done in applied aspects specially in some groups like plant associated mites and vertebrate associated mites are so vast because of their tremendous economic importance both in agriculture as well as in medical and veterinary sciences that it will be absolutely impossible to include those in such a brief account. For those, the interested workers may refer to Prasad (1914), Gupta (1985), Gupta (1986), Channa Basavanna (Ed.) (1981), Channa Basavanna and Viraktamath (Eds.) (1988¬
1989), etc.
Plant associates: As because many of these mites are economically important either as injurious plant pests or as effective predators, this gr9uP has received maximum attention and as• a result more intensive and extensive surveys were undertaken throughout the country and that. resulted in record of 721 species belonging to 53 genera under 20 families, of those the phytophagous forms account for 538 species belonging to 6 families, viz. Tetranychidae, Tenuipalpidae, Eriophyidae, Rhyncaphytoptidae, Tarsonemidae and Tuckerellidae while the remaining 189 species belong to two families of Mesostigmata (phytoseiidae and Ascidae) and 7
under Prostigmata (Stigmaeidae, Tydeidae, Cheyletidae, Anystidae, Cunaxidae, Bdellidae and Erythraeidae are important predators. Among the phytophagous forms, Eriophyoidea is the largest worked out group in which 360 species under 67 genera are known and of those the majority are endemic, may be because these mites are highly host ~cific. This is followed by Tetranychidae, the most important plant pests (100 spp., 20 genera) and Tenuipalpidae (65 spp., 10 genera). Tarsonemidae and Tuckerellidae are very poorly worked ouL Among all those families, there are as many as 30 species that are important agricultural pests in our country. Among predatory mites, phytoseiid mites are the best worked out (over 150 spp., 10 genera) as they are potential predators of mite pests as well as small insects and nematodes.
The other predatory groups have not received adequate attention as only a very few species in each family are known which does no~ constitute even 20% of the fauna likely to occur in India. So far as well worked out groups are concerned, there is a scope for further addition of another 20-30% more if surveys are conducted in some of the unexplored areas like NE hill region, An4aman and Nicobar.and Lakshadwip group of Is., Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Kashmir valley.
Soil associates (Prosligmata) : Practically nothing• is known about soil prostigmatids although they are no less abundant specially in soil rich with humus. So far, through one stray' study from Bihar, only 12 species have been recorded while. nothing is known from rest of the country. Because of very tiny nature and having soft, white coloured bodies, these mites evade attention of soil acarologists and even there are many who mistake these as juveniles of other dominant soil inhabiting fonns like 'mesogtigmatids, cryptostigmatids, etc. Hence, a vast scope exists to work in this group.
Invertebrate associates: Among the mites associated with insects, those parasitising the honey bees both externally as : Laelapidae : Euvarooa, Tropilaelaps, Varooa and internally as Scutacaridae : Acarapsis have received serious attention because of being important pests of bees which often kill the entire colonies. A good amount of work has been done both on taxonomy and other basic aspects like morphology, anatomy, biology, behaviour, etc., and applied aspects like control. Some of the relevant works have been reviewed under historiCal resu~e. Besides, reports are also on mites associated with Orthoptera (Romeschandra• and Mittal, 1981; Mohansundaram &Chinniah, 1990), Coleoptera' (Chinniah and Mohansundaram, 1990), Lepidoptera (Prasad), Hemiptera (Krantz and Khot, 1962, Rewat, 1981), Diptera (Chirwatkar &Sharma, 1990), Pseudoscorpion (Sudarsanam and Murthy, 1990) and Biyalves (pal &Majumder, 1990).
Through these only a fragmentary knowledge about mite fauna of invertebrates has been collected. Majority of the species recorded so far belong to families Erythraeidae, Pyemotidae, Podapolipodidae, Tarsonemidae and Trombidiidae under Prostigmata; Ameroseiidae, Podocinidae, Otopheidomenidae, Laelapidae among Mesostigmata and Acaridae and Saproglyphidae among Astigmata. The distribution of majority of the species is restricted to India only. Since most of the insect groups as well as other invertebrates like millipedes, scorpions, pseudoscorpions, molluscs, etc., have not been examined thoroughly and as they are known to harbour mites, it is expected that more thorough surveys, if made, will yield many more species.
Vertebrate associates :. From the previous review it is clear that this group has received wide attention since the beginning of the acarological works in the country and as many as 321 species under 40 families and 107 genera are so far known. The major families that are involved are : Prostigmata: Trombiculidae (chiggers), Pterygosomidae (lizard mites), Cheyletidae, Demodicidae (follicular mites), Myobiidae (hair mites), Pymotidae, Tarsonemid4e (itching mites), Cheyletiellidae, Syringophilidae, Harpirhynchidae (hair mites);' Astigmata : Analgidae, Dennoglyphidae, Falculiferidae (feather mites), Epidermoptidae (skin mites), Cytoditidae (air sac mites), Psoroptidae and Sarcoptidae (menge mites), etc., and among Mesostigmata: Dennanyssidae, Macronyssidae, Laelapidae, Raillietidae (all blood suckers), Spintumicidae (bat mites), Rhinonyssidae (nasal passage mites), etc.
The most dominant one is Trombiculidae which is known by 166 species. Among the vertebrates, the maximum emphasis has been laid on mite fauna of birds (poultry birds, caged birds and wild birds), rodents, domesticated animals, reptiles (snakes, lizards), amphibians (frogs) and human beings. These mites parasitize the vertebrates and while sucking the blood, inject some pathogenes, microbial organisms like bacteria, spirochaetes, protozoans, rickettsia, etc., causing virulent diseases which may cause heavy mort8;1ity. The trombiculids caused great concern to U.S. AnD-*because of posing serious health hazards cau~ing Typhus during and after World-War II that lect'to the establishment of U.S. Army Typhus Commission, Scrub-Typhus Research Laboratories, British War Office Unit and all these helped considerably to explore this group of mites.
The number of species known during various time~ are 63 (Audy, 1954), 93 (Prasad, 1974), 123 (Kulkarni, 1978) and 166 upto the present time. Next to this, the mites of the families Psoroptidae, Sarcoptidae, Aoalgide and Dermanyssidae are of importance. The Pyroglyphidae causes bronchial asthma, rhinities and other respiratory allergies. Although a good amount of informations are available on mites of this group but yet more surveys in general and from birds, reptiles and amphibians in particular are needed which will help in further addition to the faun~
Storage associates : There is hardly any granary or storage house which is not occupi~ by diverse groups of mites. Of these, some are grain feeders, some are fungivorous, a few are predators and others are coprophagous. Among Astigma~ the members of the families Acaridae (Acarus, Lardoglyphus, Rhizogiyphus, Tyroborus, Tyrophagus), Glycyphagidae (Glycyphagus, Lepidoglyphus), Carpoglyphidae (Carpoglyphus), among Prostigmata, Cheyletidae (Cheyletus) and among Mesostigmata, Ascidae (Lasioseius) and Uropodidae (Fuscuropoda) are some of the mites to be available in any storage house ..Some of them (Astigmata) feed upon the grains or other stored prOducts and damage their qualitative value while others like Cheyletidae feed upon these injurious mites. Although 71 species belonging to 45 genera under 18 families are known but these are mostly from stored grains while either nothing or very little is known from other storage like drugs, leather, pulses, ~pices, various farinaceous products, dry fishes, etc. from major parts of the country.
Therefore, it is obvious that such study will prove profitable in exploring mite fauna from these habitats. The majority of the so far reported species also occur on other parts of the world and show very little or no endemism at all.
Nest associates : Nest fauna includes mites belonging to Prostigmata, Astigmata, Mesostigmata, Cryptostigma~ and Metastigmata but the rust three are most dominant and the other two are very infrequent. Mites of the genera Ornithonyssus, Macronyssus, Steatonyssus, Laelaps (all under Mesostigmata) are blood feeders and their occurrence in nests is accidental being dropped into nest form host body (birds) while fluttering of wings. The members of the families Acaridae, Olycyphagidae (under Astigmata) and Tarsonemidae (under Prostigmata) are probably fungus feeders while majority of the others specially those belonging to Bdellidae, S tigmaeidae, Cunaxidae, Raphignathidae, Tydeidae (all under Prostigmata) are predators feeding upon the acarid mites. Some mites as Tetranychidae, Tenuipalpidae (Prostigmata) which are plant mites and have also been recorded in nests probably got entry there through nesting materials like leaves, twigs, etc, wftile some such mites as Ameroseiidae, Macrochelidae (Mesostigmata) infested nests through the insects (where these mites remain as phoretic) which occur in nests either independently i.e., they visit nests themselves or they are brought there by the birds for feeding to their young ones. Excepting one, all the studies so far conducted are from nests of 16 spp. of birds and only onc is from squirrel nest. The major study was done in West Bengal and only -one was from Pune.
Therefore, nothing is known from remaining parts of the country as well as from nests on.major bird species. A conservative estimate will show that less than 25% of the nest mite fauna is known. Considering this, it appears that this environ shows promise for the future workers and exploration of fauna not only from bird nests but also from nests of rodents will unravel the acarine faunal diversity.
House dust assocites: By now it is well documented that house dust is an important source of inhalant allergin causing bronchail asthma, rhinities and several respiratory allergies and mites of the family Pyroglyphidae (Dermatophagoities, Euroglyphus, Pyroglyphus) under Astigmataare intimately associated in producing these allergies. Therefore, mite fauna of this habitat has drawn
attention not only of acarologists but also of medical scientists and a total of 57 species have been recorded in dust. The order Astigmata constitutes as the largest group' being represented by 27 species (6 families, 20 genera) and three of those, as earlier stated, are the actual causative agents for the allergies. Among the remaining mites, some are predators (Bdellidae, Cunaxidae, Stigmaeidae -under Prostigmata), some are saprophagous/fungivorous while the occurrence of others in house dust is accidental.
It may be noted that there is a striking similarity in fauna composition of house dust and storages as both the environs have almost the same groups of mites. In a broad sense, the fauna of bird nests also shows similarity with that of storages and house dust except the occurrence of the blood sucking forms which are found only in nests and not in the other two habitats. From the knowledge already available, it is estimated that still another 25% remains to be discovered if further explorations throughout the country are made. Excepting a couple of genera and species of Astigmata, the majority are cosmopolitan while in case or Prostigmata, the species are mostly endemic.
Water associates : As has already been mentioned, the members of Prostigmata are the only ones which are available in water and so far 216 species under 57 genera and 23 families are known from Indian water. The maj9rity of the species are endemic. Some of these also are known to parasitise bivalves and a few act as bi~ontrol agents of dipteran larvae. Since the water mite fauna is very rich and a high degree of faunal diversity exists, it is obvious that more intensive studies• will add further to our knowledge.
Estimation of Taxa
Family Genera Species
12. Erynetidae 1 2 13. Erytbmeidae 8 29 14. Eupodidae 1 1 15. Eylaidae 1 2 16. Halacaridae 1 1 17. Harpagopalpidae 5 38 18'. Harpirbynchidae 1 2 19. Hydracbnidae 1 7 20. Hydrodromidae 2 5 21. Hydrovolziidae 2 3 22. Hydrophaitidae 2 3 23. Hygrobatidae 4 22 24. Iolinidae 2 2 25. Lebertiidae 2 3 26. Limnesiidae 2 7 27. Limnocharidae 2 2 28. Mideopsidae Analysing the data given in Tables it appears that the maximum number of species is known in Prostigmata because it contains species that are of significant economic importance. Since no attempt has ever been made to estimate the world fauna in majority of ~efamilies barring a few like Phytoseiidae (approx. sp. 1(00), Tenuipalpidae (apporox. 580 spp.), it is very difficult to throw any light on majority of the families as to how much of the world fauna is represented from the Indian subcontinenl Likewise, as majority of the adjoining parts of the continent still remain to be explored (except plant.mites) and whatever distributional data available are patchy, it is rather risky, at least at this stage, to make any comment about the degree of endemism shown by the Indian genera and species in general. However, some groups like water mites and eriophyids and may be tenuipalpids also which show high degree of endemism at species level and in eriophyids it is fairly high at generic level also. The Phytoseiidae, anof:her well work~ out group, also shows endemism by 40% in species level and 20% in generic level. In Trombiculidae, the genera are wen distributed. Majority of the genera in Astigmata known from India are cosmopolitan.
Classified Treatment
It includes 28 families, 72 genera and 140 species. Members of this group are mosdy inhabitants of house dust, storages, some are ectoparasites of vertebrates and a few occur in bird nests. The families Acaridae, Glycyphagidae, Saproglyphidae, Chortoglyphidae~ etc. are represented in storages, house dust and bird nests while other like Cytoditidae, Dermoglyphidae, Falculiferidae. Knemidocoptidae, Listrophoridae, etc. are parasites. The environ wise major works in this group 'are cited below :
Storgae associates: Pillai (1956) described a new species of Glycyphagus. Huglies (1961) listed the stored grain mites known from India. Vijayambika & John (1973-81) elaborately dealt with morphology, histology of Lardoglyphus Ieonoi. Cicilykutty & John (1981) studied the dry fISh mite, Suidasia medanensis. Mathur (1979) an4 Mathur &Mathur (1983) recorded species of Suidasia, Tyroborus, Austroglycyphagus; Glycyphagus from storages in .Haryana. Nangia &ChannaBasavanna (1989) reported 10 astigmatid mites belonging to genera ACtJTus, Caloglypluu. Lardoglyphus, Rhizoglyphus. Tyrophagus, Thyreophagus. Tyroborus and Tyrolyehus.
Dust associates: Dar & Gupta (1979) reported several astigmatid mites from house duaL Ranganatb et ale (1982) described new species of Acaridae and Saproglyphidae. Krishna Rao et al. (1981) reported species of Chortoglyphidae, Pyroglyphidae, Acaridae, Glycyphagidae and Saproglyphidae from dust in Karnataka. Kumar et ale (1988), Tandon et ale (1988) and Kumud et ale (1988) studied the dust mite fauna from H.P., W. Bengal and Haryana, respectively and recorded several species ofGlycyphagidae, Acaridae, Saproglyphidae, Pyroglyphidae, Carpoglyphidae, etc.
Vertebrate associates: Abdussalam (1939) described a new species ofRivoltasia from,chicken. Fain & Bafort (1964), Fain (1964), Sen & Fletcher (1962), Misra et ale (1972) recorded several species of Cytoditidae and Sarcoptidae. Mitchell (1970) reported species of Teinocoptes. Naik (1935-1938), Sen (1932), Sen &Fletcher (1962) reported several species of Sarcoptes. Alwar &Lalitha (-1961, 63), Alwar et ale (1958), Lalitha &Alwar (1960, a, b, c, 71, 72, 73), Gaud (1961), Gaud & Mouchet (1963), Atyeo et ale (1972) made significant contributions on the families. Analgidae, Epidermoptidae, Falculiferidae, Pyroglyphidae by reporting or describing new species from several hosts. D'Souza &Jagannath (1980, 82, 86) recorded mites of Analgidae, Pterolichidae, Kramerellidae, Syringobiidae, etc. from different birds. ChannaBasavanna et ale (1982) described a new species of Caloglyphus. Putatunda (1990) reported a new mite of Trouessartia.
Nest associates: Gupta &Chattopadhyay (1979), Gupta & Paul (1985, 1989) recorded specjes of Glycyphagidae, Acaridae, Analgidae, Pterolichidae, etc. from b~ds' nests.
Invertebrate associates: Hiregaudar (1956) described a new species ofMyalges from pigeon fly. Putatunda et ale (1984) described 2 new species ofKuzinia.
Prostigmma
Altogether 1093 species belonging to 261 genera under 52 families are so far known from India, of these the families Tetranychidae, Tenuipalpidae, Eriophyidae, Rhyncaphytoptidae are exclusively phytophagous, the families Bdellidae, Cunaxidae, Anystidae, Tydeidae, Stigmaeidae, Chey letidae, Erynraeidae and Raphignathidae are predators of phytophagous mites, some are parasitic and 23 families are aquatic. Important works environ-wise are given below:
Vertebrate associates: Oudemans (1914), Hirst (1915), Ewing (1925, 31), Abdussalam (1939), Radford (1946, 48), Womersley (1952), Womersley &Fuller• (1952), Traub (1949), Traub &Evans (1956), Rao &Hiregaudar (1955), Hiregaudar (1957,58), Audy &Nadchatram (1957), Audy &Womersley (1957), Traub &Morrow (1957), Womersley & Audy .(1957), Domrow (1962), Joshee (1960), Mitchell et ale (1966), Mitchell &Nadchatram (1966), Verma (1967, 69), Verma.& Nadchatram (1971, 1972), Bhat (1971), Kulkarni (1973-1988), Kulkarni et ale (1979) made valuable contributions on trombiculid mites and through these many species :were either described or reported from India. Hirst (1926) described several new species of Geckobia and other genera from Indian lizards. Mitter (1912), Naik (1931, 37, 39), Sen &Fletcher (1962), Das &Misra (1972) studied Demodicidae. Fain (1963, 69) described new species ofErynetidae from birds. New species of various prostigmatid groups were described by Prasad (1975) in Bharatoliaphilis, Putatunda et ale (1988) in Pygmephorus, etc. Putatunda et ale (1989) recorded several species of Pyemotidae, Tarsonemidae, Chey letidae, Chey letiellidae, S yringophilidae and Harpirhynchidae from birds.
Invertebrate associates: Mitra &Mitra (1953) described a new species of Stigmaeus from Phlebotomus fly. Putatunda &Kapil (1988) described 7 new species of Cheletophyes from bees. Peshwani (1960) recorded a species of Eutrombidium from grasshopper. Mohansundaram and his co-workers (1990) recorded a number of species ofLocuslacarus, Leptus, Pygmephorus, Pyemotes from insects.
Nest associates: Ramachandra Rao & Rajagopalan (1970) reported species ofTrombidiformes, Smariidae, Hydrachnellae, etc. from bird nests. Gupta & Chattopadhyay (1979), Gupta &Paul (1985), Gupta & Paul (1989) reponed or described several species of Cheyletidae, Stigmaeidae, Tydeidae, Raphignathidfae, etc.
Dust associates: Gupta & Datta Ray (1976), Krishna Rao et ala (1981), ChannaBasavanna et ala (1984), Tandon et ala (1988), Kumud et ala (1988) and Kumar et ala (1988) reported several mites of Cheyletidae, Erythraeidae, Cunaxidae, etc.
Water associates: Daday (1908), Viets (1926), Walter (1928), Lundblad (1934), Cook (1967), Nayar (1969), Tomar &Raychaudhri (1981, 1982) dealt with the entire mite fauna from India.
Plant associates: Since a detailed discussion has already been made in the historical resum~ as weti as it is elaborately given in Gupta (1985, 1986) and Prasad (1974),.these are not repeated here.
Mesostigmata
The fauna is represented by 247 species belonging to 61 .genera under 17 families, of these, Phytoseiidae, Ascidae, are predators, Uropodidae. Urodinychidae, Digamasellidae, Ascidae occur in storages, nests and remainmg are parasites (Spinturnicidae, Raillietidae, Macroriyssidae, Laelapidae) of birds and mammals (externally as blood feeders), Rhinonyssidae (internal parasite of nasal passage of birds) while Otopheidomenidae are msect parasites. The important works as per different environs are given below:
Invertebrate associates: Krantz &Khot (1962) described Treatia indica from red cotton bug. Prasad (1973) described a new species of Otopheidomenis from sphingid moth: D'Souza &, Jagannath (1986) recorded Macrocheles muscido~sticae from house fly. Bhaskar & Putatunda (1989) dealt with mesostigmatids associated with bees. Vishnupriya & Mohansundaram (1990) reported new Fuscuropoda and Dinogamasus from insects.
Vertebrate asociates : Hirst (1922) described a new Liponyssus. Hiregaudar (1955), Gupta &, Basu (1932), Naik (1936) recorded species of DermanysssuS and Orniiho(lYssus. Alwar &, Lalitha (1960) recorded speCies of Androlaelaps. Hiregaudar &Bal (1956) and.Advani &, Vazirani (1981) described many species of Spinturnicj~e, Macronyssidae and Lae~daeinfesting bats. Putatunda et ala (1989) reported species of Rhinonyssidae, Blattisocidae, Macronyssidae, D:om birds.
Nest associates: Gupta & PaUl (1985, 89) recorded species .of Laepidae, Macronyssidae, Dennanyssidae, Phytoseiidae, Ascidae, Ameroseiidae from bird's nest
Dust associates': Kumud et ala (1988), Tandon et all (1988) and Kumar et ala (1988) recorded species of Ameroseiidae, Uropodidae, Dennanyssidae, Parasitidae, etc. from dust
Plant associates: The relevant works have been reviewed in the historical resum6 given earlier as well as are given in detail in Gupta (1985, 1986, 1987) and Prasad (1974).
Current Studies
In ZSI
Work is being carried out on plant associated mites embracing all the three groups and both intensive and e~tensive surveys are taken up throughout the country to bring out State Fauna volumes. Recently some work has been started from storages in and around Calcutta. Works are also going on nest associated mites and soil Prostigmatid mites as well as mites associated with house dust.
Elsewhere
A concerted effort is being made not only to explore the plant mite fauna of different regions of the country but also to study the biology, ecology, control, etc. of some of the economically important species through the All India Co-ordinated Research Project in Agricultural Acarology, founded by the I.C.A.R. is being operated in 10 centres like Univ. of Agric. Sci., Bangalore and Dharwad; Tamil Nadu Agric. Univ., Coimbatore; Gujarat Agric. Univ., Navasari; Banaras Hindu Univ., Varanasi; Haryana Agric. Univ., Hisar; Rajasthan Agric. Univ., Bikaner; B. C. Krishi Viswavidyalaya, Kalyani and Punjab Agric. Univ., Ludhiana. . Work on plant feeding mites is also being conducted in different agricultural universities/institutes/traditional universities through ad-hoc research projects funded by various funding agencies like I.C.A.R., D.S.T., U.G.C., Kalyani, Calcutta, Tripura and Calicut Univ., lNAU (Madurai), YSPU (Solan), IIHR, IARI, ICRISAT, CPCRI, SEKU, etc. Works on parasitic mites are being carried out in NIV (Pune) (Trombiculid mites) as weiI as in UAS (Bangalore, Dharwar). Mites associated with stored gmins and dust are being tackled at HAU (Hisar), School of Trop. Med. (Calcutta) (dust), DAV College (Chandigarh), YSPU (Solan), etc. Mites associated with Jnvertebrates are being worked out in HAU (Hisar), lNAU (Madurai). At present no centre is knpwn where work is being carried out on water mites.
Expertise
In ZSI
S. K. Bhattacharyya [Meso stigmata] &A. K. Sanyal [Oribatids], ZSI, M-Block, New Alipur, Calcutta 700 '053.
Y N. Gupta, ZSI, Central Regional Station, 1544/A, Napier Town, Jabalpur (M.P.). [Tetranychoids].
Elsewhere
S. K. Gupta, All India Coordinated Research Project on Agricultural Acarology, (I.C.A.R), College of B.S. &H. Building, University of Agric. Sciences, G.K.V.K. Bangalore -560 065 [plant, soil, dust, nest and storage mites].
G. P. ChannaBasavanna &B. Mallik, University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore.
L. S. Hiregaudar, University of Agric. Sciences, Dharwad."[parasitic mites].
M. Mohansumdaram, Tamil Nadu Agric. University, Coimbatore. [Eriophyoids, Tetranychoids, insect mites].
R. B. Mathur, Mrs. S. Mathur &B. N. Putatunda, Haryana Agric. University, Hisar.
G. L. Sadana, Punjab Agric. University, Ludhiana (punjab). [Tetranychoids].
S. Chakraborti, Kalyani University, Kalyani (W. Bengal). [Eriophyoids].
A. Q. Rather, Sher-e-Kashmir University, Srinagar (J. &K.) [plant mites].
H. Bhat, S. M. Kulkarni &A. C. Misra, National Instt. of Virology, Pone. [Trombiculids].
J. Singh, Banaras Hindu University. Varan~i (U.P.). [plant mites].
Abroad
E. W. Baker, , Van Buren SL, Hysttsvilla, Maryland 20702, U.S.A. (plant mites).
J. Boczek, Agricultural University, Warsaw, Poland (Eriophyoids).
M. K. P. Meyer, Plant Protection Research Institute, Private Bag, Pretoria, South Africa. (plant mites).
S Ehara, Faculty of AgriCUlture, Tottori University, Japan (plant mites).
E. E. Lindquist, Biosystematic Research Laboratory, Canada Dept. of Agriculture, Ottawa, Canada. (Tersonemids).
D. M. Tuttle, University of Arizona, Arizona, U.S.A. (plant mites).
J. Guttierrez, Orstom, 3191, Route De Mende, 34060, Montpellier, Cedex, France. (plant mites).
C. H. W. Flechtmann, University of Sao Paulo, Brazil (plant mites).
R. W. Husband, Aldrian College, Aldrian, Michigan, U.S.A. (Bee mites).
R. Domrow, Queensland Institute of Medical Sciences, Queensland, Brisbane, Australia {Trombiculids).
Delfinado Bak~r, USDA, Maryland, U.S.A. (Insect associated mites).
M. Nadchatrnm, Institute of Medical Entomology, Kuala Lumpur, Malayasia, (Trombiculids).
R. Mitchell, University of Texas, Austin, Texas, U.S~A. (Water mites).
W. M. Chaudhurl, We~t Pakistan Agricultural University, Lyallpur, Pakistan (plant mites).
D. R. Cook, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, U.S.A. (Water mites).
V. Prasad, Sparrow Medical College &Hospital, Michigan, U.S.A. (plant mites).
P. H. Vercammen-Grandjean, University of California, San Francisco, U.S.A. (Trombiculids).
R. L. Smiley, U.S.D.A., Maryland, U.S.A. (plant mites).
A. Fain, Institute of Tropical Medicine, 155 rue Nationale, Antwerp, Belgium (parasitic mites).
J. Gaud, Pamsitology Laboratory, Faculty of Medicine, Rennes, France. (parasitic mites).
W. T. Atyeo, University of Georgia. Athens. Georgia, U.S.A. (parasitic mites).
K. Samsinak, Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences, Pmgue, Czechoslovakia (parasitic mites).
R. N. Sinha. Canada Dept. of Agriculture, P.O. Box 6200, Winipeg, Manitoba, Canada (Stored product mites).
D. A. Griffith, Pest Infestation Laboratory, Slough, London (Stored product mites).
D. A. Chant, Toronto University, Ontario, Canada (phytoseiidae, Ascidae).
H. A. Denmark, Florida Dept. of Agriculture, Gainsville, Florida, U.S.A. (phytoseiidae).
J. A. McMurthy, University of California, Barkley, California, U.S.A. (phytoseiidae).
G. O. Evans, 34 Hormare Crescent, Storrington, Pulborough, West Sussex, RH 20, 4QT,
1.(Meslostigmata). 2. 3.E. Hunter, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, U.S.A. (Insect mites). 4.
Selected References
Channa Basavanna, G. P. 1966. A contribution to the knowledge of the Indian Eriopbyid mites (Eriophyoidea: Trombidiformes: Acarina). Bull. Univ. Agri. Sci., Bangalore: 153 pp.
Channa Basavanna, G. P. 1981. (Ed.) Contribution to Acarology in India. Acarological Society of India, Bangalore : 256 pp.
Channa Basavanna, G. P. &Viraktamath, C. A. 1988 (Eds.) Progress in Acarology, Vol. I. Oxford IBH, New Delhi: 523 pp.
Channa Basavanna, G. P. &Viraktamath, C. A. 1989 (Eds.). Progress in Acarology, Vol. II, Oxford IBH, New Delhi: 484 pp.
ProstigmIJta. AstigmIJta and MesostigmIJta
Cook, D. R. 1967. Water mites from India. Mem. Amer. Ent.lnst. 9 : 1-411. Das, G. M. 1965. Pests of tea in northeast India and.their conttol. Tocklai Expt. Stn. Mem., No.
27 : 115 pp. Gupta, S. K. 1985. Handbook: Plant mites ofIndia. Zoological Survey of India, Calcutta: 520 pp. Gupta, S. K. 1986. Fauna of India (Acari: Mesostigmata) Family Phytoseiidae. Zoological Survey of India, Calcutta: 350 pp. Hiregaudar, L. s. &BaI, D. V. 1956. Some ectoparasites of bats from India., Agra Univ. J. Res.
& Sci., 5(1) : 1-134. Pillai, P. R. P. 1957. Pests of stored fish and prawns. Bull. Res. Inst. Univ. Travancore, 5(3) : 1¬
79. Prasad, V. 1914. A catalouge ofmites ofIndia. Indira Acarology Publishing House,.Ludhiana :
320 pp. Prasad, V. 1982. The history ofAcarology. Indira Publishing House, Michigan, U.S.A. : 412 pp. Sen, S. K. &Fletcher, T.B. 1962. Veterinary Entomology and Acarology for India. nC.A.R.,
New Delhi : 668 pp.
