<p><strong>Reconditioning of the Nalepa collection of eriophyoid mites (Acariformes, Eriophyoidea)</strong></p>

Abstract

The eriophyoid mites are tiny but ancient and very diverse-over 5000 species have been named and described so far (Chetverikov et al. 2015;Bolton et al. 2017;Xue et al. 2017). They have received tremendous attention from acarologists over the last two decades or so. Major books-such as world catalogue (Amrine & Stasny 1994), key to genera (Amrine et al. 2003) and volumes of comprehensive review articles on its taxonomy, biology and control (Lindquist et al. 1996;Ueckermann 2010)-have facilitated the discovery and study of these mites in recent years. Surveys of new mite species described during 2007 to 2015 revealed that more new species of this superfamily have been described than any other mite superfamily (

Collection management and study of microscope slides: Storage, profiling, deterioration, restoration procedures, and general recommendations

“…soak 'sediment' and mites in 5 ml 70% ethanol, 3 ml 5% acetic acid, and 10 drops of diethyl ether, heat for 424 hours to 75°C; heat mite in lactic acid for several hours at 95°C (or up to 18 hours at 100− 110°C); mount specimen phytophagous Acari -'sediment' contained mites which were originally fixed in picric acid, hydrochloric acid, ethanol formaldehyde (now probably polymerized), or mixtures thereof; phenolic components were added to prevent microbial growth Chetverikov et al 2016 3.10.6 Problems with water-soluble mounting media…”

Supplementary descriptions of seven eriophyoid mite species (Acari: Eriophyoidea) recovered from the Viennese Nalepa collection and comparison with Japanese species

“…The preservative was not recorded, but other records indicate that Dr. Nalepa used either a 1:100:2 mixture of picric acid, distilled water and concentrated hydrochloric acid, or a 100:2 mixture of 94% ethanol and concentrated hydrochloric acid (Nalepa, 1906). Following the protocol of Chetverikov et al (2016), the sediment in each vial was suspended in 5 ml of 70% ethanol, three drops of 5% acetic acid and 10 drops of pure diethyl ether. The vials were then heated for ca.…”

“…External genitalia 17 (n=1), 26 (n=1) wide, flat bowl-shaped; coverflap smooth; setae 3a delay species identification by eriophyoid mite researchers. If all old mite collections including Keifer's and others could be restored, just as Chetverikov et al (2016) could restore the old Nalepa's mite collections in their protocol, it would greatly contribute to the taxonomy of Eriophyoidea. In addition, recently, methods for extracting DNA without destroying mite specimens has been developed (Phillips and Simon, 1995; Ota et al, 2011; Sakamoto and Gotoh, 2017; Duarte et al, 2019.…”

“…Recently, Chetverikov et al (2016) developed a method for recovering mummified materials of eriophyoid mites collected by Nalepa over 100 years ago, which are kept in the Natural History Museum of Vienna (in German: Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, NHMW), Austria, and they successfully made preparation slides capable of species identification. Using this protocol, Marinković et al (2018) recovered mummified eriophyid mite specimens collected by Nalepa and reported the detailed taxonomic traits for three species of the subfamily Cecidophyinae.…”

“…Therefore, two of us (F. K. and T. G.) visited the museum and got permission to take a part of the Nalepa mite collection to Japan. According to the protocol of Chetverikov et al (2016), we recovered eriophyoid mites from the sediment in the vials and made slide preparations.…”