FNZ 4 - Eriophyoidea except Eriophyinae (Arachnida: Acari)
Manson, DCM 1984. Eriophyoidea except Eriophyinae (Arachnida: Acari). Fauna of New Zealand 4, 144 pages.
(
ISSN 0111-5383 (print),
;
no.
04.
ISBN 0-477-06745-X (print),
).
Published 12 Nov 1984
ZooBank: http://zoobank.org/References/C249A0E0-4F66-431B-9DB6-5C01ACA8CF65
Classification
During this work on the eriophyoid mites I have had the problem of deciding the appropriate taxonomic framework to use in the classification of species.
One of the most recent classifications is that of Newkirk & Keifer, in Mites Injurious to Economic Plants (Jeppson et al. 1975), and one of the key papers cited there is that of Newkirk & Keifer (1971), whereby drastic changes were proposed in the usage and definition of the well known genera Aceria, Eriophyes, and Phytoptus. A major proposal was that species in the genus Aceria Keifer, 1944 would be removed to Eriophyes Siebold, 1851, and species in Eriophyes would be transferred to Phytoptus Dujardin, 1851. These changes were in formal agreement with the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, but they tended to create confusion amongst students of the Eriophyoidea and acarologists in general, particularly as in the 33 years preceding 1971 the existing definition and usage of Aceria, Eriophyes, and Phytoptus had become well established.
Subsequently a case was presented to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 32 (1), p. 17-18, and 32 (2), p. 86-94; 1975) to negate the proposals of Newkirk & Keifer and retain the pre-1971 usage for the above genera. V. G. Shevtchenko and E. E. Lindquist were leading proponents of this action, and have been supported by other acarologists. Their view was upheld by the Commission (Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 36 (1), p. 63- 64; 1979) and it is my intention to follow this decision here.
However, one other problem has arisen. An examination of Eriophyes vitis, designated the type species of Eriophyes, by Keifer (1938b) shows that it is quite distinct from - and hence not congeneric with - the vast majority of species placed in Eriophyes. Keifer (1944) recognised this when he stated: "Thus the genotype is at once unharmonious with the bulk of species herein referred to Eriophyes and may have to be separated." Subsequently, Newkirk & Keifer (1971) erected a new genus, Colomerus, to which they transferred E. vitis. Now, to abide by the 1979 ruling of the Commission would be to transfer the vast majority of species now in Eriophyes to another genus, which would defeat the underlying principle of their decision.
I discussed this problem with Dr G. W. Ramsay (Entomology Division, DSIR, Auckland), and we jointly submitted a note to the Secretary of ICZN proposing that the Commission use its plenary powers to designate a new type species for Eriophyes. We believe this would be the best means of retaining the name Eriophyes in the usage proposed by the Commission in 1979. No action has been taken on this proposal, so I have decided to transfer Eriophyes vitis to genus Colomerus, as has already been done by Newkirk & Keifer (1971), Jeppson et al. (1975), Savage (1978), and Ramsay (1980), and retain the narne Eriophyes in its original context. This course creates the least disturbance to the present classification while abiding in principle by the ICZN decision.