Pachydellus furcifer (Oudemans, 1902)

Pachylaelaps furcifer Oudemans, 1902: 52 . Type locality: Netherlands.

Pachylaelaps furcifer . — Oudemans, 1904: 107.

Pachylaelaps laeuchlii Schweizer, 1922: 37 . Type locality: Switzerland. Synonymy by Sellnick (1931: 749), followed by Koroleva (1977b: 429) and confirmed by Mašán (2007a: 216).

Pachylaelaps furcifer . — Sellnick, 1931: 749; Koroleva, 1977b: 429, 469.

Pachylaelaps laeuchlii . — Schweizer, 1961: 107; Hirschmann & Krauss, 1965: 5; Karg, 1993: 124.

Pachylaelaps (Pachylaelaps) laeuchlii .— Karg, 1971: 145.

Pachydellus furcifer . — Mašán, 2007a: 178, 212, 214.

not Pachylaelaps furcifer . — Evans & Hyatt, 1956: 121 (= Pachydellus aff. problematicus); Hirschmann & Krauss, 1965: 5 (= Pachydellus sculptus); Karg, 1971: 152; 1993: 127 (= Pachydellus aff. problematicus).

Notes. According to Mašán (2007a), none of the four original slides of Pachydellus furcifer available in the Oudemans Collection bears a type designation, but without doubt the two slides from Haarlem belong to the original series of Oudemans. These two slides from Haarlem (№ P3602, № P3603) contain a single dissected female, which may be considered as holotype (the original description is based only on female stage). This female is in good agreement with those redescribed by Koroleva (1977b) and Mašán (2007a). The other two slides from Arnhem bear a female (№ P3604) and male (№ P3605) of Pachydellus sculptus . Unfortunately, these misidentified specimens were illustrated by Hirschmann & Krauss (1965) under the name furcifer, and incorrectly considered to be conspecific with Pachydellus angulatipes (Berlese, 1903) (see notes to that species). Karg’s concept (1971, 1993) of furcifer is confused because he considered it as a species having clunal setae J5 normal in size, not minute (see his identification keys for the genus Pachylaelaps).