Goodeniacarus leiperi, Beard & Seeman, 2025

Beard, Jennifer J. & Seeman, Owen D., 2025, Two new genera and six new species of flat mites (Prostigmata: Tenuipalpidae) from Goodeniaceae (Asterales) in Australia, Zootaxa 5637 (2), pp. 201-259 : 203-205

Goodeniacarus leiperi sp. nov. Beard & Seeman

( Figs 1–4 )

Types. Holotype. Female, Australia, Ranger Road, approx. 5 km S of Warwick along New England Highway, Queensland, 28°16’50.1” S 151°58’31.5” E, ex. Goodenia rotundifolia R.Br. ( Goodeniaceae ), 25.iii.2016, J.J. Beard and P.I. Forster. Paratypes. 5 females, same data as holotype. All specimens deposited in QM.

Diagnosis. Female. Dorsal ornamentation comprising plicae forming irregular fine reticulation and folds; dorsal setae length 5–8. Setae g1 positioned slightly posterior to g2. Setae ps2 and ps3 blunt, lengths ps2 5–6, ps3 5–6. Femora I–II with seta bv″ long, tapered; femora IV with 1 seta (ev′ present, d absent); tarsus I–II with companion seta ftʺ slightly longer than solenidion ωʺ. Blunt setae on femora and tibiae: femur I–III d; genu I–II d, l″; tibia I–II l″; tibia III–IV d. Blunt leg setae can have 1–2 small barbs (can be difficult to see).

Description

Adult female. (6 measured)

Dorsum. ( Figs 1 , 2 ) Body measurements: v2–h1 192–209 [209], sc2–sc2 122–133 [132], c3–c3 126–141 [134], f3–f3 74–88 [88]. Prodorsal and opisthosomal shields weakly developed. Prodorsum with fine irregular plicae forming irregular reticulation and folds; with shallow sublateral furrows; anterior margin with small median forked projection forming a notch (5–10) [5–7]; with a pair of minute pores sublaterally (can be difficult to see) and discrete pore-like invagination mesad sc2 (indicated by arrows in Fig. 1 ). Opisthosoma cuticle pattern similar to that of prodorsum, with complicated plicae forming fine irregular reticulation, becoming smoother anteriorly between c1–c1 and d1–d1; with transversely plicate band of sclerotised cuticle around opisthosomal shield margin, most apparent when specimen flattened ( Fig. 2 ); with 3 pairs of large pores—just mesad setae c3, mesad d3 and anteromesad e3; with up to 4 pairs minute pores visible (can be difficult to see). Dorsal setae all short, blunt. Setal measurements: v2 6–7 [6–7], sc1 6–8 [6–7], sc2 6–8 [6], c1 6–8 [6–7], c3 5–7 [5–6], d1 5–8 [6], d3 5–6 [5–6], e3 5 –6 [5–6], f3 5–6 [5–6], h1 4–6 [5].

Infracapitulum. ( Figs 1 , 3A ) Dorsal cuticle appears smooth, ventral cuticle with fine oblique plicae laterally; infracapitular setae m fine (11–13) [12–13]. Palp tarsus phaneres (2–3 and 8–9); femur-genu-tibia with single barbed dorsal seta (13–15) [13–14].

Venter. ( Fig. 3A ) Ventral cuticle with various patterns of fine to strong plicae; with fine longitudinal plicae between setae 1b–1a and longitudinal to oblique plicae on coxae I–II; with transverse plicae between setae 1a–3a becoming widely spaced 3a–4a; with small region of broadly U-shaped plicae anterior to 4a–4a; with fine arching plicae demarking anterior margin of genital flap; genital region flanked by widely spaced longitudinal plicae. Setae g1 inserted just posterior to g2 on genital flap; flap with longitudinal to irregular plicae between ag–g1. Most ventral setae short, fine, appear smooth or with 1–2 barbs; except setae 1a and 4a elongate, fine, and often broken; ps2 and ps3 blunt. Setae ps3 often obscured within lateral folds of genital opening; with large, rounded pore in soft cuticle laterad anal opening. Setal measurements: 1a 64–96 [75–86], 1b 18–20 [19], 1c 14–16 [15], 2b 18–21 [18–19], 2c 14–17 [15–16], 3a 13–17 [15], 3b 11–19 [16], 4a 41–56 [56], 4b 15–17 [17], ag 9–12 [10–11], g1 8–12 [8–9], g2 9–13 [9], ps2 5–6 [5], ps3 5–6 [6].

Spermathecal apparatus. ( Fig. 3B ) A moderately short membranous duct with a broader bulb midway, and narrower distal portion with a granulate texture, terminating in a small, rounded bulb.

Legs. ( Fig. 4 ) See genus Diagnosis for full setal formulae for legs I – IV , except femur IV with 1 seta (ev′ present, d absent). See description of type species, G. rosulatus sp. nov., for full leg chaetotaxy. Tarsi I and II each with one abaxial solenidion ωʺ (both 5–6 [5–6, 6]); barbed companion seta ftʺ slightly longer than solenidion (7–9 [8], 8–9 [8], respectively); pair of prorals p′ζ, pʺζ inserted on minute cuneiform tubercles (both 8–9). Solenidion and setae ft′ inserted on small tubercles. Some leg setae blunt, of similar form to dorsal idiosomal setae except can have 1–2 small barbs (barbs can be difficult to see): seta l′ on trochanter III ; seta d on femora I– II , d on femora III; d, l″ on genua I–II; l″ on tibiae I– II , and d on tibiae III– IV .

Colour. These mites were bright red when alive.

Host. Goodenia rotundifolia R.Br. ( Goodeniaceae ).

Distribution. This mite is so far known only from Warwick in southeast Queensland, Australia.

Etymology. This species is named for the field botanist and photographer Glenn Leiper, who has helped the senior author collect and identify host plants on many occasions over the years.

Remarks. Host plant identification made by Queensland Herbarium (BRI voucher: PIF43590). Goodeniacarus leiperi sp. nov. and G. uri sp. nov. were collected from the same species of host plant approximately 160 km apart. These two species can easily be separated using the following characters: G. leiperi sp. nov. dorsum with fine irregular reticulation, seta bv″ on femur I–II finely tapered, setae l′ on femur II and genu II finely tapered vs G. uri sp. nov. dorsum with mostly elongate longitudinal plicae, bv″ on femur I–II short and blunt, setae l′ on femur II and genu II short, blunt.

Figures

FIGURE 1. Goodeniacarus leiperi sp. nov. female dorsum; arrows on prodorsum indicate invagination and minute pore.

FIGURE 2. Goodeniacarus leiperi sp. nov. female dorsum, detail of lateral band in flattened specimen.

FIGURE 3. Goodeniacarus leiperi sp. nov. female A. venter; B. spermatheca.

FIGURE 4. Goodeniacarus leiperi sp. nov. female legs, with detail of the ventral aspect of tarsus I and II (I, II, IV right side; III left side).