Dear colleagues,
I am having problems in identifying the exact year of publication of the original description of Tetranychus urticae by C.L. Koch.
The reference to my knowledge should read: Koch, C.L. ([1835]?): Tetranychus urticae. Beschreibung Nr 10, Heft Nr 1. In: Deutschlands Crustaceen, Myriapoden und Arachniden. Ein Beitrag zur deutschen Fauna. [Friedrich Pustet], Regensburg

I could find the original series of booklets in a library at the Zoologische Staatssammlung Munich, each consisting of 20-30 single sheets with original descriptions, but unfortunately they are not dated (and a number of sheets is missing, including T.urticae).

The complete oeuvre is dated in the library´s card file from 1835 to 1841. As T.urticae is description Nr 10 in booklet 1, the year of publication consequently is most likely to be 1835, which is also being used in a number of publications.

On the other hand, since the 1931 paper by A.C. Oudemans (Acarologische Aanteekeningen CVII. Entomol. Ber. 8(178), 221-236, 1931), where he obviously recognised the validity of Koch´s name, Oudemans gives January 1936 as the date of publication and, since then, many others have followed this opinion.

Now, my question: Has anybody before been able to solve this problem and can give me a sound advice, which year of publication is correct, 1835 or 1836?

Thanks and best regards from Bavaria, Germany
Florian
--
Florian Weihrauch
Diplom-Biologe
Hengelerstr. 9
D-80637 München

Germany

fon: +49-(0)89/1596950
e-mail: florian.weihrauch@t-online.de
------
 

Dear friends-Acarologits!

It seems to me that we begin the very important work - we begin to discuss
methodical problems of our teaching ( following to our famous acarogist
A. Zachvatkin ,I think that Acarology is not independent science, but tea-
cing or study only). Hope that discussion will have the progress and from
the important problems of the mite's structures measurement we pass to the
another actual methodical questione and than to the methdology of Acarology
(if it exists in general). May be in not so long distant future we obtain
possibility to organize Acarological E-mail  Conferences.

It is very interesting and important that we begin to discuss problems of
etimology. Let me add some Russian data concerning the term "tenent". Corre-
spondently to the English-Russian Biological Dictionary it means "holding"
 or "tenacious". As far as I remember this term was used (enough seldom) by
the Hartford Keifer.

Some words about measurements.
1. All four-legged mites' taxonomy on the species level, since Nalepa's time,
based  on measurements in the great degree. But all setae of these mites are
very thin that is why it is hard to receive reliable  data. It is naturally
well known fact. But we (Eriophydologists) especially need in the standartiza-
tion of methods of mites measurements, rules of rings calculation etc.

2. I have done such experiment: I have asked two my colleagues to  measure one
and the same slides containing mite's exemples only one and the same species.
Mathematically different data was received in some cases as a result. I do not
think  that all data must coincide but by the special instruction it is possible
to do less the difference between receiving data. It is necessary to prepare
special guidance on the subject.

3. I must say that description of the new Tetrapodili species on the base one
example only will be stopped. The proper characteristics are possible receive
on the base fo seriies consideration. A number of described species must be con-
trolled. and redescribed. It is hard but quite necessary work. Who will do it?
Unconscientious authors?

I feel that I must stop my own reasoning here.
Thanks for your attention.

Sincerely, Valery Shevchenko

Head of the Group Plant Acarology
Biological Research Institute
Saint Petersburg State University
vs@vs3969.spb.edu
 
 
 

[Bertrand]  michel Bertrand: contibution
[Bertrand]  Why 11?m rather than 10.5?m?
The measurement  can be made by the way of a micrometer on the ocular. In
some case, by the use of a non expensive drawing material which prism is
placed  between the ocular and your eye you can enlarge the image on a
paper sheet. Using 25(oc)*40(obj), the length measured is in a rapport of
about 130 to 170 mm measured for a length of 100?m. But we do a double
error during the measure of at max 1mm which is less than 1?m on the piece
or hair measured. An other error is due to the shape and the orientation of
the piece because we measure very often the projection on a plane surface
of an object which the beginning and the end are at different depth on the
slide. So we can only give a good measure for the objects which are
perfectly oriented, and only the length of the line between the two points.
Even is the measure is perfect, there is a remnant error : the calibration
. an error is made because of the lines of the object micrometer and the
ocular micrometer . I made a calculation some years ago and i found that
this error may be important. However, I think a recalibration of the
microscope is necessary before any series of measures, even if the
microscope have been calibrated during the last week and systematically if
the microscope has different users.
About the distorsion, by the use of good quality optics the error induced
is certainly a little thing : those you do are bigger...
 
 

The measurement  can be made by the way of a micrometer on the ocular. In
some case, by the use of a non expensive drawing material which prism is
placed  between the ocular and your eye you can enlarge the image on a
paper sheet. Using 25(oc)*40(obj), the length measured is in a rapport of
about 130 to 170 mm measured for a length of 100?m. But we do a double
error during the measure of at max 1mm which is less than 1?m on the piece
or hair measured. An other error is due to the shape and the orientation of
the piece because we measure very often the projection on a plane surface
of an object which the beginning and the end are at different depth on the
slide. So we can only give a good measure for the objects which are
perfectly oriented, and only the length of the line between the two points.
Even is the measure is perfect, there is a remnant error : the calibration
. an error is made because of the lines of the object micrometer and the
ocular micrometer . I made a calculation some years ago and i found that
this error may be important. However, I think a recalibration of the
microscope is necessary before any series of measures, even if the
microscope have been calibrated during the last week and systematically if
the microscope has different users.
About the distorsion, by the use of good quality optics the error induced
is certainly a little thing : those you do are bigger...
In conclusion the error made is different according the way , depends if
you measure the length on the object or on the drawings, and according the
ocular you are using. And the errors have to be summed ..;;
MICHEL BERTRAND
UNIVERSITE MONTPELLIER III
0467142317
 

-----Message d'origine-----
De: Barry M. OConnor [SMTP:bmoc@umich.edu]
Date: jeudi 29 novembre 2001 02:47
A: acarology@nhm.ac.uk
Objet: accuracy in measurement

I have reviewed several manuscripts this year in which authors give
measurements of structures on mites (setae, etc.) in tenths or hundredths
of a micrometer, e.g. 27.35.  I have commented to the editors that these
authors need to learn about significant digits and the accuracy to which
such structures can be measured using optical microscopes.  It is my
opinion that one cannot accurately measure a structure using an ocular
micrometer on a compound microscope to an accuracy better than one
micrometer.  I reason that there are several sources of error in making
such measurements: 1) the ocular micrometer must be calibrated using a
stage micrometer (the smallest divisions on my stage micrometer are at 100
micrometer intervals), so some inaccuracy is introduced at that point. (I
used to be surprised when I would measure someone else's type specimen with
my microscope and find that my measurements differed from those published
by up to 20%!  and yes, I did recalibrate my ocular micrometer!) 2) many
structures being measured are curved (e.g. setae), so one is forced to
estimate the measurement unless one draws the structure and traces the
line, then uses a calibrated ruler.  3)  although the process of preparing
slide mounts does render the specimen largely two-dimensional, there is
still thickness in the preparation, so some structures cannot be accurately
measured due to height (e.g. setae projecting straight up).  4) the optics
themselves introduce distortion, especially near the edges of the field of
view.  This is amply demonstrated to anyone trying to use a camera lucida
to draw structures at high magnification. 5) finally, students may forget
that mere multiplication of numbers does not confer greater accuracy.  If
an ocular micrometer has a conversion factor such as 44 units = 100
micrometers (i.e. 2.3 micrometers per unit), and the structure being
measured is 5 units long, it should be reported as 12 rather than 11.5
micrometers.
 I would appreciate hearing from anyone who thinks I am wrong about
this.  I have had authors argue with me that they can, indeed, measure to
an accuracy of a hundredth of a micrometer.
 All the best! - Barry

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
So many mites, so little time!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barry M. OConnor
Professor & Curator             phone: (734) 763-4354
Museum of Zoology               FAX: (734) 763-4080
University of Michigan          e-mail: bmoc@umich.edu
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1079  USA
 
 
 

From:  "Charnie Craemer" <Rietcc@PLANT2.AGRIC.ZA>
To: "Barry M. OConnor" <bmoc@umich.edu>
Date:  11/29/01 9:16pm
Subject:  ... another measured note

In a previous e-mail I wrote:

Note: I must add when using a micrometer, measuring on 100x
objective without even adding magnification with the obtovar, that I
can sometimes see that a setae "ends" in the middle of two fine
measurement lines on the micrometer, and then it is very tempting
to want to use tenths of a micrometer, e.g. 10.5.

I must add :), on my microscope using 10x eyepieces, 100x
obective and 1x obtovar, the ocular micrometer neatly calibrates to
1 fine "measurement distance" = 1 micron.

Charnie
 
 
 
 
 

CC: <acarology@nhm.ac.uk>

From:  "Charnie Craemer" <Rietcc@PLANT2.AGRIC.ZA>
To: "Barry M. OConnor" <bmoc@umich.edu>
Date:  11/29/01 9:07pm
Subject:  Re: accuracy in measurement

Dear Barry

I agree that one has to question the usefulness/validity of such fine
accuracy, even when using morphometric techniques.  I agree with
Sabina, Dave and you - definitely a difference of even a micrometer
or two will not aid in differentiating between taxa, or even to
determine the variation in a population, as indeed it is only an
estimate from a small sample.

... and enter the world of electronics ... :) Maybe these "accurate"
measurements were generated by using measuring modules of
image analysis programmes in an image analyzing set up?  It
would be interesting to compare the accuracy of digital
measurements with those obtained by a micrometer.  Measuring
curved setae also becomes less of a problem with image analysis
measuring.

Still, does such accuracy make systematic sense?

Note: I must add when using a micrometer, measuring on 100x
objective without even adding magnification with the obtovar, that I
can sometimes see that a setae "ends" in the middle of two fine
measurement lines on the micrometer, and then it is very tempting
to want to use tenths of a micrometer, e.g. 10.5.

Very best wishes.
Charnie

On 28 Nov 2001, at 17:47, Barry M. OConnor wrote:

> I have reviewed several manuscripts this year in which authors give
> measurements of structures on mites (setae, etc.) in tenths or
> hundredths of a micrometer, e.g. 27.35.  I have commented to the
> editors that these authors need to learn about significant digits and
> the accuracy to which such structures can be measured using optical
> microscopes.  It is my opinion that one cannot accurately measure a
> structure using an ocular micrometer on a compound microscope to an
> accuracy better than one micrometer.  I reason that there are several
> sources of error in making such measurements: 1) the ocular micrometer
> must be calibrated using a stage micrometer (the smallest divisions on
> my stage micrometer are at 100 micrometer intervals), so some
> inaccuracy is introduced at that point. (I used to be surprised when I
> would measure someone else's type specimen with my microscope and find
> that my measurements differed from those published by up to 20%!  and
> yes, I did recalibrate my ocular micrometer!) 2) many structures being
> measured are curved (e.g. setae), so one is forced to estimate the
> measurement unless one draws the structure and traces the line, then
> uses a calibrated ruler.  3)  although the process of preparing slide
> mounts does render the specimen largely two-dimensional, there is
> still thickness in the preparation, so some structures cannot be
> accurately measured due to height (e.g. setae projecting straight up).
>  4) the optics themselves introduce distortion, especially near the
> edges of the field of view.  This is amply demonstrated to anyone
> trying to use a camera lucida to draw structures at high
> magnification. 5) finally, students may forget that mere
> multiplication of numbers does not confer greater accuracy.  If an
> ocular micrometer has a conversion factor such as 44 units = 100
> micrometers (i.e. 2.3 micrometers per unit), and the structure being
> measured is 5 units long, it should be reported as 12 rather than 11.5
> micrometers.
>  I would appreciate hearing from anyone who thinks I am wrong about
> this.  I have had authors argue with me that they can, indeed, measure
> to an accuracy of a hundredth of a micrometer.
>  All the best! - Barry
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --- So many mites, so little time!
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --- Barry M. OConnor Professor & Curator             phone: (734)
> 763-4354 Museum of Zoology               FAX: (734) 763-4080
> University of Michigan          e-mail: bmoc@umich.edu Ann Arbor, MI
> 48109-1079  USA
>
>
>
 
 

*  CHARNIE CRAEMER
*  Acarologist
*  LNR-NAVORSINGSINSTITUUT VIR PLANTBESKERMING
*  ARC-PLANT PROTECTION RESEARCH INSTITUTE
*  Private Bag X134, PRETORIA, 0001 SOUTH AFRICA
*  e-mail: rietcc@plant2.agric.za
*  web: http://www.arc.agric.za/
*  TEL: +27-12-329 3269/70-77  FAX: +27-12-329 3278
 
 

CC: <acarology@nhm.ac.uk>

Hi Barry:

I totally agree with you that in mite measurements, it is unnecessary to
to measure to tenths or hundredths of a unit. I found this early on in
grad
school when I measure a specimen at the scope at Bishop, and since I go
back in forth to Lee Goff's Lab at UH, remeasure it using the Lab scope,
and I found there were 1-2 micrometers difference between the two scopes.
And sure, I calibrated both
microscopes using stage and ocular micrometers but the measurements still
vary. And both scopes are of the same make - Wild M... After several
tries, I used one scope and and whatever measurement came of it was
final.

The other thing with the use of decimal points, I find it crowds the text
of a manuscript although it makes the paper looks scientific and scholarly
having those decimal points. Still, I think they need to be rounded to a
whole number.

My 2 pesetas.

Sabina
 
 
 
 
 

____________________________________ Sabina F. Swift
Department of Plant and Environmental Protection Sciences
University of Hawaii at Manoa
3050 Maile Way, Gilmore 310
Honolulu, Hawaii 96822-2271
Phone: (808) 956-2445
Fax: (808) 956-2428
E-mail: sabina@hawaii.edu

On Wed, 28 Nov 2001, Barry M. OConnor wrote:

> I have reviewed several manuscripts this year in which authors give
> measurements of structures on mites (setae, etc.) in tenths or hundredths
> of a micrometer, e.g. 27.35.  I have commented to the editors that these
> authors need to learn about significant digits and the accuracy to which
> such structures can be measured using optical microscopes.  It is my
> opinion that one cannot accurately measure a structure using an ocular
> micrometer on a compound microscope to an accuracy better than one
> micrometer.  I reason that there are several sources of error in making
> such measurements: 1) the ocular micrometer must be calibrated using a
> stage micrometer (the smallest divisions on my stage micrometer are at 100
> micrometer intervals), so some inaccuracy is introduced at that point. (I
> used to be surprised when I would measure someone else's type specimen with
> my microscope and find that my measurements differed from those published
> by up to 20%!  and yes, I did recalibrate my ocular micrometer!) 2) many
> structures being measured are curved (e.g. setae), so one is forced to
> estimate the measurement unless one draws the structure and traces the
> line, then uses a calibrated ruler.  3)  although the process of preparing
> slide mounts does render the specimen largely two-dimensional, there is
> still thickness in the preparation, so some structures cannot be accurately
> measured due to height (e.g. setae projecting straight up).  4) the optics
> themselves introduce distortion, especially near the edges of the field of
> view.  This is amply demonstrated to anyone trying to use a camera lucida
> to draw structures at high magnification. 5) finally, students may forget
> that mere multiplication of numbers does not confer greater accuracy.  If
> an ocular micrometer has a conversion factor such as 44 units = 100
> micrometers (i.e. 2.3 micrometers per unit), and the structure being
> measured is 5 units long, it should be reported as 12 rather than 11.5
> micrometers.
>  I would appreciate hearing from anyone who thinks I am wrong about
> this.  I have had authors argue with me that they can, indeed, measure to
> an accuracy of a hundredth of a micrometer.
>  All the best! - Barry
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> So many mites, so little time!
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Barry M. OConnor
> Professor & Curator             phone: (734) 763-4354
> Museum of Zoology               FAX: (734) 763-4080
> University of Michigan          e-mail: bmoc@umich.edu
> Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1079  USA
>
>
>
>
 
 
 

CC: <acarology@nhm.ac.uk>

Hi Barry,

Failure to observe the rules about significant digits isn't restricted to
microscopic measurements: it is also common when reporting means for any
number of measurements, counts, etc.  Another point to consider is the
superior value of range over mean for reporting measurements in taxonomic
descriptions.  Even the most industrious of us rarely use more than a
couple of dozen specimens from a limited set of collections to characterise
measurements - and means (+/- SE or SD) from small data sets are not very
useful guides to the populations being studied, let alone those that others
may encounter.  Ranges are simple to determine and a more robust guide to
what to expect.

I too have often wondered at the deviation from published measurements and
those that I get on remeasuring type specimens.  Given the expense of a
simple stage micrometer (just having priced one to replace the one that
left with a departing colleague, I'm amazed!), I wonder if human hairs or
other less precise standards were commonly used in the past?  In any case,
your list of problems is pretty comprehensive, with one exception from
personal experience.  If one changes the focal distance on a calibrated
microscope, then the ocular grid needs to be recalibrated.  I once
published my own 20%-off measurements on Gamasellodes vermivorax Walter,
1987, when I did not realise that adding a drawing tube to the microscope
had changed the calibration.

Cheers,

Dave Walter
 

At 05:47 PM 28/11/2001 -0800, you wrote:
>I have reviewed several manuscripts this year in which authors give
>measurements of structures on mites (setae, etc.) in tenths or hundredths
>of a micrometer, e.g. 27.35.  I have commented to the editors that these
>authors need to learn about significant digits and the accuracy to which
>such structures can be measured using optical microscopes.  It is my
>opinion that one cannot accurately measure a structure using an ocular
>micrometer on a compound microscope to an accuracy better than one
>micrometer.  I reason that there are several sources of error in making
>such measurements: 1) the ocular micrometer must be calibrated using a
>stage micrometer (the smallest divisions on my stage micrometer are at 100
>micrometer intervals), so some inaccuracy is introduced at that point. (I
>used to be surprised when I would measure someone else's type specimen with
>my microscope and find that my measurements differed from those published
>by up to 20%!  and yes, I did recalibrate my ocular micrometer!) 2) many
>structures being measured are curved (e.g. setae), so one is forced to
>estimate the measurement unless one draws the structure and traces the
>line, then uses a calibrated ruler.  3)  although the process of preparing
>slide mounts does render the specimen largely two-dimensional, there is
>still thickness in the preparation, so some structures cannot be accurately
>measured due to height (e.g. setae projecting straight up).  4) the optics
>themselves introduce distortion, especially near the edges of the field of
>view.  This is amply demonstrated to anyone trying to use a camera lucida
>to draw structures at high magnification. 5) finally, students may forget
>that mere multiplication of numbers does not confer greater accuracy.  If
>an ocular micrometer has a conversion factor such as 44 units = 100
>micrometers (i.e. 2.3 micrometers per unit), and the structure being
>measured is 5 units long, it should be reported as 12 rather than 11.5
>micrometers.
>         I would appreciate hearing from anyone who thinks I am wrong about
>this.  I have had authors argue with me that they can, indeed, measure to
>an accuracy of a hundredth of a micrometer.
>         All the best! - Barry
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>So many mites, so little time!
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Barry M. OConnor
>Professor & Curator             phone: (734) 763-4354
>Museum of Zoology               FAX: (734) 763-4080
>University of Michigan          e-mail: bmoc@umich.edu
>Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1079  USA

Dr David Evans Walter
Department of Zoology & Entomology
The University of Queensland
St Lucia, QLD 4072 Australia

phone: 07-3365-1564
fax: (61) 7-3365-1655

The University of Queensland Remote Program in Entomology
http://www.zen.uq.edu.au/remote.php

Cooperative Reseach Centre for Tropical Plant Protection
http://www.tpp.uq.edu.au/

Visit the Mite Image Gallery at:
http://www.uq.edu.au/entomology/mite/mitetxt.html
 

CC: <acarology@nhm.ac.uk>

I have reviewed several manuscripts this year in which authors give
measurements of structures on mites (setae, etc.) in tenths or hundredths
of a micrometer, e.g. 27.35.  I have commented to the editors that these
authors need to learn about significant digits and the accuracy to which
such structures can be measured using optical microscopes.  It is my
opinion that one cannot accurately measure a structure using an ocular
micrometer on a compound microscope to an accuracy better than one
micrometer.  I reason that there are several sources of error in making
such measurements: 1) the ocular micrometer must be calibrated using a
stage micrometer (the smallest divisions on my stage micrometer are at 100
micrometer intervals), so some inaccuracy is introduced at that point. (I
used to be surprised when I would measure someone else's type specimen with
my microscope and find that my measurements differed from those published
by up to 20%!  and yes, I did recalibrate my ocular micrometer!) 2) many
structures being measured are curved (e.g. setae), so one is forced to
estimate the measurement unless one draws the structure and traces the
line, then uses a calibrated ruler.  3)  although the process of preparing
slide mounts does render the specimen largely two-dimensional, there is
still thickness in the preparation, so some structures cannot be accurately
measured due to height (e.g. setae projecting straight up).  4) the optics
themselves introduce distortion, especially near the edges of the field of
view.  This is amply demonstrated to anyone trying to use a camera lucida
to draw structures at high magnification. 5) finally, students may forget
that mere multiplication of numbers does not confer greater accuracy.  If
an ocular micrometer has a conversion factor such as 44 units = 100
micrometers (i.e. 2.3 micrometers per unit), and the structure being
measured is 5 units long, it should be reported as 12 rather than 11.5
micrometers.
 I would appreciate hearing from anyone who thinks I am wrong about
this.  I have had authors argue with me that they can, indeed, measure to
an accuracy of a hundredth of a micrometer.
 All the best! - Barry

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
So many mites, so little time!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barry M. OConnor
Professor & Curator             phone: (734) 763-4354
Museum of Zoology               FAX: (734) 763-4080
University of Michigan          e-mail: bmoc@umich.edu
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1079  USA
 

Dear Colleagues,

I'm looking for maps and data about reported and predicted tick numbers and
tick-borne diseases (human) in Great-Britain, Sweden and Norway.

Many thanks,

Maxime

Dr. Maxime Madder
Institute of Tropical Medicine
Department of Animal Health
Nationalestraat 155
B-2000 Antwerp
Belgium
tel + 32 3 247 63 97
fax + 32 3 247 62 68

Dear friends,
 I am in need of a copy of the following Kuznetzov (N.N.) paper:
Fauna of the family Raphignathidae Kramer 1877.
Nauch.Dokl.Vyssh.Sck., Biol.Nauk., 8: 37-44. Your help in this
matter will be much appreciated.
 Kind regards
 Eddie Ueckermann
 

ARC-Plant Protection Research Institute
Biosystematic Division: Arachnology
Private bag X134
Pretoria
0001 South Africa
Tel:+27-12-329 3269-77 ext. 221
Fax:+27-12-329 3278
E-mail:rieteau@plant2.agric.za
Web:www.arc.agric.za
 

Hi all,
thanks for all your insightful responses to my query. Now I see a little
clearer about the meaning of "tenent" and the function of these hairs
:-)

Regards
Thomas Morwinsky

Here's what the Oxford English Dictionary says:

tenent
tenent te.nent, a. rare-1. [ad. L. tenent-em holding, pr. pple. of tenere
to hold. ] Holding.

* 1861 T. West in Trans. Linn. Soc. (1862) XXIII. 408 "That these
[hair-like appendages] are the immediate agents in holding is now admitted
by almost all; it will be convenient to term them 'tenent hairs', in
allusion to their office."

regards,

George Hammond

--On Wednesday, November 21, 2001 10:08 AM -0800 "Barry M. OConnor"
<bmoc@umich.edu> wrote:

> At 7:38 AM -0500 11/21/01, ronald ochoa wrote:
>> "the true paired claws  are equipped with Tenent hairs or chaetoids."
>> Gutierrez & Helle Chapter 1.1.5.; Lindquist Chapter 1.1.3 **
>
> Thomas Morwinsky wrote...
> I am aware that these are small hairs as shown on various drawings,
>> but I'd need to know more specific details, especially the meaning of
>> "tenent"...
>
> The root of "tenent" is probably the Latin "tentus" meaning "stretched" or
> "elongated."  There is also a similar Greek word, "tonos." - Barry
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> So many mites, so little time!
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Barry M. OConnor
> Professor & Curator             phone: (734) 763-4354
> Museum of Zoology               FAX: (734) 763-4080
> University of Michigan          e-mail: bmoc@umich.edu
> Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1079  USA
>

Hi all,

Just to keep things complicated, my understanding has always been that
tenent hairs have a handle-like tip and the term probably came from the
Latin for something to hold (perhaps 'tenen' = holding).  As Eddie notes
the hairs often have L-shaped tips, or look like a flat-head nail in
cross-section.  Some springtails and insects also have tenent hairs, so one
of those leg-challenged mandibulate types may have coined the term.

Cheers from Oz,

Dave Walter
 

At 12:28 PM 21/11/2001 +0100, you wrote:
>Hi everybody,
>I've got a tricky problem here. For my thesis I found some references
>(Krantz' "Manual of Acarology" and Evans' "Principles of Acarology")
>to "tenent hairs" located on the tarsus/empodium of mites (cheyletid
>ones in my case). Being german I do not know the meaning of
>"tenent" and every dictionary I could find (even a specialized one for
>biological terms) did not list it.
>I am aware that these are small hairs as shown on various drawings,
>but I'd need to know more specific details, especially the meaning of
>"tenent". Unfortunately there are also no further explanations in the
>books above.
>
>Thanks in advance for any responses
>Thomas Morwinsky

Dr David Evans Walter
Department of Zoology & Entomology
The University of Queensland
St Lucia, QLD 4072 Australia

phone: 07-3365-1564
fax: (61) 7-3365-1655

The University of Queensland Remote Program in Entomology
http://www.zen.uq.edu.au/remote.php

Cooperative Reseach Centre for Tropical Plant Protection
http://www.tpp.uq.edu.au/

Visit the Mite Image Gallery at:
http://www.uq.edu.au/entomology/mite/mitetxt.html
 

CC: <acarology@nhm.ac.uk>

At 7:38 AM -0500 11/21/01, ronald ochoa wrote:
>"the true paired claws  are equipped with Tenent hairs or chaetoids."
>Gutierrez & Helle Chapter 1.1.5.; Lindquist Chapter 1.1.3 **

Thomas Morwinsky wrote...
I am aware that these are small hairs as shown on various drawings,
>but I'd need to know more specific details, especially the meaning of
>"tenent"...

The root of "tenent" is probably the Latin "tentus" meaning "stretched" or
"elongated."  There is also a similar Greek word, "tonos." - Barry

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
So many mites, so little time!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barry M. OConnor
Professor & Curator             phone: (734) 763-4354
Museum of Zoology               FAX: (734) 763-4080
University of Michigan          e-mail: bmoc@umich.edu
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1079  USA

Date sent:       <color><param>0000,0000,8000</param>Wed, 21 Nov 2001 12:28:12 +0100</color>

<bold>Subject:         <color><param>0000,0000,8000</param>Tenent hairs</bold></color>

Send reply to:   <color><param>0000,0000,8000</param>tmorwinsky@zoologie.uni-kiel.de</color>
 

Dear Thomas,

 As my predecessor explained it to me, "tenent" hairs are
capitate (almost L-shaped) distally as in the genus <italic>Bryobia</italic> of the
the Tetranychidae, opposed to acute distally as in the genus
<italic>Tetranychus</italic>, for instance.

 Hope this helps.

 Kind regards

 Eddie A. Ueckermann
 

Hi everybody,

I've got a tricky problem here. For my thesis I found some
references

(Krantz' "Manual of Acarology" and Evans' "Principles of
Acarology")

to "tenent hairs" located on the tarsus/empodium of mites
(cheyletid

ones in my case). Being german I do not know the meaning of
"tenent"

and every dictionary I could find (even a specialized one for

biological terms) did not list it. I am aware that these are small

hairs as shown on various drawings, but I'd need to know more
specific

details, especially the meaning of "tenent". Unfortunately there are

also no further explanations in the books above.
 

Thanks in advance for any responses

Thomas Morwinsky
 

<color><param>0100,0100,0100</param>------- End of forwarded message -------

<nofill>
ARC-Plant Protection Research Institute
Biosystematic Division: Arachnology
Private bag X134
Pretoria
0001 South Africa
Tel:+27-12-329 3269-77 ext. 221
Fax:+27-12-329 3278
E-mail:rieteau@plant2.agric.za
Web:www.arc.agric.za

"the true paired claws  are equipped with Tenent hairs or chaetoids."
Gutierrez & Helle Chapter 1.1.5.; Lindquist Chapter 1.1.3 **
Please check:
The Torre-Bueno Glossary of Entomology. NYES, ISBN 0-913424-13-7
**Spider Mites: their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. Vol. 1A, Helle
& Sabelis Ed.,  Elsevier. 1985.  ISBN 0-444-42374-5
 

Ronald Ochoa, Ph. D.
SEL, ARS, PSI, USDA, BARC-West
10300 Baltimore Blvd., Bldg. 005, Room 137, Beltsville, MD 20705
Phone 301-504 7890
Fax 301-504 6482
rochoa@sel.barc.usda.gov

>>> Thomas Morwinsky <tmorwinsky@zoologie.uni-kiel.de> - 11/21/01 6:28 AM
>>>
Hi everybody,
I've got a tricky problem here. For my thesis I found some references
(Krantz' "Manual of Acarology" and Evans' "Principles of Acarology")
to "tenent hairs" located on the tarsus/empodium of mites (cheyletid
ones in my case). Being german I do not know the meaning of
"tenent" and every dictionary I could find (even a specialized one for
biological terms) did not list it.
I am aware that these are small hairs as shown on various drawings,
but I'd need to know more specific details, especially the meaning of
"tenent". Unfortunately there are also no further explanations in the
books above.

Thanks in advance for any responses
Thomas Morwinsky
 

Hi everybody,
I've got a tricky problem here. For my thesis I found some references
(Krantz' "Manual of Acarology" and Evans' "Principles of Acarology")
to "tenent hairs" located on the tarsus/empodium of mites (cheyletid
ones in my case). Being german I do not know the meaning of
"tenent" and every dictionary I could find (even a specialized one for
biological terms) did not list it.
I am aware that these are small hairs as shown on various drawings,
but I'd need to know more specific details, especially the meaning of
"tenent". Unfortunately there are also no further explanations in the
books above.

Thanks in advance for any responses
Thomas Morwinsky

Dear Acarologists

If anyone has a contact email or snail address for either TK Bobrovskikh or
SD Uzenbaev who published a paper in 1987 in Parazitologiya (21:522-527) on
"... trophic relation ..between ground beetles and ixodid ticks", I would
much appreciate if they would contact me.

Thanks

John (Eoin) A. Healy,
University College,
Cork, Ireland
 

From:  "Jose G. Palacios Vargas" <jgpv@hp.fciencias.unam.mx>
To: Thomas Morwinsky <tmorwinsky@zoologie.uni-kiel.de>
Date:  11/22/01 2:58pm
Subject:  Re: Tenent hairs

Dear colleagues:

I have worked for a long time on Neotropical Collembola (in addition to
some mites), this is why I am familiar with the term " Tenent hairs ".
It is one modified sensorial seta (or hair) which are located mainly in
the tibiotarsus of the legs of the Collembola. These setae can be dorsal,
lateral or ventral and are very easy to distinguish of other "hairs", due
in the first place because they have a bigger alveolus, in addition to
that their apex can be clavate, truncated or acuminate. From my point of
view they  are not comparable with those "tenet hairs" which appears in
some Prostigmata mites (maybe chaetoids) because they are located on the
empodium or on the
nails. One of the classic works of a German author on Collembola,
was Dr. Gisin, who in his Collembolenfauna Europas (1960) used the terms:
"Spürhaareen " or " Keulenhaaren " depending on the form of the apex of
such " tenent hairs ".

        I hope this helps, sincerely  José Palacios
 
 

On Wed, 21 Nov 2001, Thomas Morwinsky wrote:

> Hi everybody,
> I've got a tricky problem here. For my thesis I found some references
> (Krantz' "Manual of Acarology" and Evans' "Principles of Acarology")
> to "tenent hairs" located on the tarsus/empodium of mites (cheyletid
> ones in my case). Being german I do not know the meaning of
> "tenent" and every dictionary I could find (even a specialized one for
> biological terms) did not list it.
> I am aware that these are small hairs as shown on various drawings,
> but I'd need to know more specific details, especially the meaning of
> "tenent". Unfortunately there are also no further explanations in the
> books above.
>
> Thanks in advance for any responses
> Thomas Morwinsky
>
 
 
 

CC: <acarology@nhm.ac.uk>

Dear colleagues

Do you know about Dr. Amrine (USA) and his health?

Thanks for your help
Cheers
Alireza Saboori

From:  "Ali Ahadiyat" <ahadiyat@pardisco.com>
To: <acarology@nhm.ac.uk>
Date:  11/9/01 6:21am
Subject:  Fw: Dr. Donald N. Kinn's addresses

Dear acarologists,
Hello,

    I would like to contact with Dr. Donald N. Kinn and I need his help for my M.S. thesis. I couldn't find his e-mail and mailing addresses in the internet. Would you please do me help me and send me his e-mail and mailing addresses to my e-mails:

ahadiyata@yahoo.com
ahadiyat@pardisco.com

    I will happily look forward to hearing from you and helping me in advance.

With my best wishes,
Yours sincerely,

Ali Ahadiyat
 
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ali Ahadiyat
No.125
Golestan 3rd St.,Pasdaran Ave.
Tehran, Zipcode:16668
IRAN
ahadiyat@pardisco.com
ahadiyata@yahoo.com

Dear Friends,

On Nov 10, the International Journal of Acarology (IJA) will honor our
retired and deceased acarologists (last 50 years) in a ceremony at
Morgantown, Virginia. I will fly to Virginia to join celebrate and honor
our colleagues. However, there is a bit of problem because in some areas,
we don't have a listing of our colleagues who have retired, or retired
but still doing mite research or who died. From France, we have only a few
listed, from Poland and Russia, also a few. I wonder if you can send me
personally names of our colleagues who retired, retired but still working,
and those who died. I appreciate whatever you can send me. I happen to
have the honor of reading the names of our retired acarologists, and I
don't want to miss anybody's name. They all need the recognition they
deserve.

Thank you and aloha, Peace.
Sabina
____________________________________
Sabina F. Swift
Department of Plant and Environmental Protection Sciences
University of Hawaii at Manoa
3050 Maile Way, Gilmore 310
Honolulu, Hawaii 96822-2271
Phone: (808) 956-2445
Fax: (808) 956-2428
E-mail: sabina@hawaii.edu
 
 

Dear Colleagues,

I need given articles below (or related papers). Any help would be greatly appreciated.
El-Banhawy E. M, 1977. Effect of photoperiod, light intensity an temperature on the development and reproduction of  the predacious mite Amblyseius brazilli (Mesostigmata, Phytoseiidae). Rev. Bras. Biol 37 (3) 579-583.

El-Benhawy, E. M., 1976. Biology of the predacious mite Amblyseius brazilli (Phytoseiidiae: Mesostigmata) under different photoperiod, light intensity and temperature regimes. An. Soc. Entomol. Bras, 5 (1) p:86-89.

El-Tawab, A., 1982. Zur wirkung von temperatur und photoperiode auf the entwicklung, ernahrung, und eiablage der raubmilbe Amblyseius swirskii Ath - Henr. (Acari: Gamasida, Phytoseiidae), (Effect of temperature and photoperiod on the development, fecundity, and longevity of Amblyseius swirskii Ath. - Henr. (Acari: Gamasida: Phytoseiidae)). Anzeiger fur Schadlingskunde, Pflanzenschutz , Umweltschutz. 55 (7)  p:107-109.

Thanks in advance

Best regards

Cengiz KAZAK
Cukurova University
Agricultural Faculty
Dept. of Plant Protection
01330 Adana-TURKEY
E-mail: ckazak@mail.cu.edu.tr
Phone: +90-322-3386369
Fax: +90-322-3386369

Has anyone done any behavioural work on soft ticks, particularly looking at repellents?  In addition, does anyone have an efficient way of feeding them that reduces nymphal mortality?  Any help would be gratefully received!

Thanks

L. Robinson

Dear Dr. Walter

  Dr. Marisa Castagnoli's e-mail address is as follows: marisa.castagnoli@tin.it

Best regards
Sincerely yours

Alireza Saboori
 

You wrote:

> From: Dave Walter <D.Walter@mailbox.uq.edu.au>
> To: acarology@nhm.ac.uk
> Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 13:53:53 +1000
> Subject: Dr. Marisa Castagnoli
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> Does anyone have an email address for Dr. Marisa Castagnoli ?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave Walter
>
>
 
 

CC: <acarology@nhm.ac.uk>

Hi all,

Does anyone have an email address for Dr. Marisa Castagnoli ?

Cheers,

Dave Walter