identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
03D76920FF9FFFE428CDFC7DFE898F19.text	03D76920FF9FFFE428CDFC7DFE898F19.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Acalitus essigi (Hassan 1928) Hassan 1928	<html xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
    <body>
        <div>
            <p> Acalitus essigi (Hassan, 1928)</p>
            <p>(Fig. 1)</p>
            <p> Type host and locality. Hassan (1928) had not clearly specified the type host or locality but stated that  A. essigi was first reported by Essig and Smith (1922) on Himalaya blackberry in California, USA. Keifer (1941) redescribed this species from  Rubus vitifolius Cham. &amp; Schlechtendal collected in Sacramento, California, to “definitely characterize the red-berry mite”. </p>
            <p> Distribution. Widespread in Europe and the USA and also recorded from Australia, New Zealand, and Chile on many species of  Rubus . </p>
            <p> Relation to the host. The feeding activity of  A. essigi is the causal agent of “red berry disease”, which results in incomplete, uneven ripening of the fruit, and is a particular problem for late maturing varieties (de Lillo &amp; Duso, 1996). </p>
            <p> Collection data. England, Norfolk, Norwich, commercial plant nursery site, low numbers of adult females and males on  R. fruticosus , 26.viii.2009; England, Kent, Tonbridge, commercial plant nursery site, low numbers of adult females, males and nymphs on  R. fruticosus , 07.x.2009 and 12.xi.2009. </p>
            <p> Remarks. The first record of eriophyoid mites causing “red berry disease” in England appears to have been made by Massee (1931), who recorded damage from East Malling, Kent, and Kirdford, West Sussex, and listed the host plants as wild and cultivated blackberries, loganberry and Himalaya berry, but did not provide any specific plant names. Massee (1961) confirmed  A. essigi from slide mounted specimens and reported it from  Rubus spp. from East Malling, Preston, Lancashire and Southfleet, Kent, and reported it as “locally common”. </p>
        </div>
    </body>
</html>
	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D76920FF9FFFE428CDFC7DFE898F19	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Pye, Daniel R. L.;Lillo, Enrico De	Pye, Daniel R. L., Lillo, Enrico De (2010): A review of the eriophyoid mites (Acari: Eriophyoidea) on Rubus spp. in Britain, with a new species (Diptilomiopidae) and two new records. Zootaxa 2677: 15-26, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.199254
03D76920FF9CFFE428CDFD1DFDDE892F.text	03D76920FF9CFFE428CDFD1DFDDE892F.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Anthocoptes rubicolens Roivainen 1953	<html xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
    <body>
        <div>
            <p> Anthocoptes rubicolens Roivainen, 1953</p>
            <p>(Figs. 2 &amp; 3)</p>
            <p> Type host and locality.  Rubus sp., Spain. </p>
            <p> Distribution. England (recorded here), Poland (from  R. laciniatus Willd ) (Shi, 2000), Latvia (from  Rubus sp.) (Rupais, 1976) and Spain (Roivainen, 1953). </p>
            <p>Relation to the host. Vagrant, recorded as causing discoloration to the foliage (Shi, 2000).</p>
            <p> Collection data. England, Kent, Tonbridge, commercial plant nursery site, low numbers of adult females, males and nymphs on  R. fruticosus , 12.xi.2009. No host plant damage symptoms were observed. </p>
            <p> Remarks. This is the first record of this species from plant material growing in Britain. Following Amrine et al. (2003), two forms of  A. rubicolens were found in this population, a mature female with expanded dorsal annuli (Fig. 2) and a teneral female without expanded dorsal annuli (Fig. 3). The biological meaning of these two forms remains to be established. </p>
        </div>
    </body>
</html>
	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D76920FF9CFFE428CDFD1DFDDE892F	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Pye, Daniel R. L.;Lillo, Enrico De	Pye, Daniel R. L., Lillo, Enrico De (2010): A review of the eriophyoid mites (Acari: Eriophyoidea) on Rubus spp. in Britain, with a new species (Diptilomiopidae) and two new records. Zootaxa 2677: 15-26, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.199254
03D76920FF9DFFE228CDFBA2FB198E52.text	03D76920FF9DFFE228CDFBA2FB198E52.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Phyllocoptes gracilis (Nalepa 1890) Nalepa 1890	<html xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
    <body>
        <div>
            <p> Phyllocoptes gracilis (Nalepa, 1890)</p>
            <p>(Fig. 4)</p>
            <p> Phyllocoptes rubi (Whitehead, 1892) Phyllocoptes parviflori Keifer, 1939 Type host and locality.  Rubus idaeus L., from an unknown location. Amrine &amp; Stasny (1994) listed the type locality as “ Austria?”, however Nalepa described the species from samples collected by Schlechtendal, who worked in Germany. </p>
            <p> Distribution. Widespread in Europe, USA, China and Russia on many species of  Rubus (Keifer, 1975; de Lillo &amp; Duso, 1996; Song et al., 2006). This species has not been formally recorded from Australia, but may be present in Tasmania (Scott et al., 2008). </p>
            <p>Relation to the host. Causes mottling, yellowing, or discolouration to the foliage. The leaves can be crumpled and the berries may ripen prematurely and become dry.</p>
            <p> Collection data. England, North Yorkshire, Burythorpe, high numbers of adult females, males and nymphs on the underside of the leaves of wild  Rubus sp., 29.iv.2009, collected by J. C. Ostojá-Starzewski; England, Somerset, Frome, commercial plant nursery site, low numbers of adult females, males and nymphs on  Rubus sp., 18.vi.2009, collected by Miranda Baldwin (Plant Health and Seeds Inspector). </p>
            <p> Remarks.  Phyllocoptes gracilis was first reported in Britain, as  Phyllocoptes rubi , by Whitehead (1892), and later recorded by Bagnall and Harrison (1917 &amp; 1928), Burkhill (1930) and Turk (1953). However, these records were apparently based on observed host damage symptoms alone and cannot be verified. Massee (1961) confirmed  P. gracilis from slide-mounted specimens collected from  R. idaeus, Raspberry, Himalaya Berry and Blackberry , from East Malling, Kent, and reported  P. gracilis as “common. </p>
        </div>
    </body>
</html>
	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D76920FF9DFFE228CDFBA2FB198E52	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Pye, Daniel R. L.;Lillo, Enrico De	Pye, Daniel R. L., Lillo, Enrico De (2010): A review of the eriophyoid mites (Acari: Eriophyoidea) on Rubus spp. in Britain, with a new species (Diptilomiopidae) and two new records. Zootaxa 2677: 15-26, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.199254
03D76920FF9AFFE028CDFC1DFF7F8C10.text	03D76920FF9AFFE028CDFC1DFF7F8C10.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Asetadiptacus acarubri	<html xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
    <body>
        <div>
            <p> Asetadiptacus acarubri n. sp.</p>
            <p>(Figs. 5 &amp; 6)</p>
            <p>Female: (n=10). Body fusiform, 164 (142–234), 81 (77–86) wide. Gnathosoma projecting obliquely down, chelicerae 67 (59–72), setae d 11 (11–14). Prodorsal shield 35 (35–41), 59 (58–68) wide, frontal lobe 7 (5– 10), ornamented with a series of depressions and lines, creating a cellular pattern (Fig.1 –, H). Tubercles sc slightly ahead of rear shield margin, 27 (26–30) apart; setae sc absent. Leg I 42 (41–44); femora 12 (11–13), setae bv absent; genua 7 (7–8), setae l 32 (29–43); tibiae 13 (12–14), setae l’ 6 (6–7); tarsi 9 (8–9), setae ft’ 22 (19–25), setae ft 27 (23–30); setae u’ 4 (4–6); solenidia 7 (6–7), knobbed distally; empodia divided, 7 (6–7), 6 rayed on each side. Leg II 40 (38–42); femora 12 (12–13), setae bv absent; genua 6 (6–7), setae l 11 (7–12); tibiae 12 (11–13); tarsi 9 (7–9), setae ft’ 5 (4–8), setae ft 28 (20–29); setae u’ 5 (4–7); solenidia 7 (6–8), knobbed distally; empodia divided, 7 (6–8), 6 rayed on each side. Coxae 1 ornamented with fine granules, coxae 2 with sparse granules and lines and dashes surrounding the tubercles. Setae 1b 14 (12–17), 13 (13–15) apart; setae 1a 14 (13–16), 13 (12–14) apart; setae 2a 57 (32–62), 29 (28–36) apart; tubercles 1b and 1a 10 (9–10) apart; tubercles 1a and 2a 9 (8–12) apart. Coxigenital region with 8 (8) semiannuli. Opisthosoma with 50 (50–59) dorsal annuli, sometimes with a weakly developed medial ridge, 79 (75–90) ventral annuli (66 (65–77) if they are counted from the posterior margin of the progenital chamber). Dorsal microtubercles small, beadlike, and sparse, often absent. Ventral microtubercles anteriorly small, beadlike, and becoming progressively more longitudinally elongate posteriorly, ventral annuli completely microtuberculate. Setae c2 37 (29–39), on annulus 17 (14–17) (4 (3–4) from behind the genital chamber), 56 (52–67) apart; setae d 56 (42–70), on annulus 31 (28–31) (18 (17–19) from behind the genital chamber), 38 (37–44) apart; setae e 55 (38–61), on annulus 49 (45–54) (36 (35–41) from behind the genital chamber), 21 (21–27) apart; setae f 37 (33–42), on annulus 69 (68–76) (56 (56–63) from behind the genital chamber), 30 (25–31) apart, 10 (9–13) from rear. Setae h2 75 (60–83), 11 (11–12) apart; setae h1 absent, represented by a small tubercle, 8 (8) apart; h2 and h1 tubercles 3 (2–3) apart. Genital coverflap ornamented with granules basally, smooth and unornamented posteriorly, 22 (17–23), 30 (28–32) wide. Setae 3a 9 (9–11), 20 (19–22) apart.</p>
            <p>Male: (n=4). Similar to female. Body fusiform, 182 (150–198), 74 (72–79) wide. Gnathosoma projecting obliquely down, 32 (32–46), chelicerae 52 (52–65), setae d 11 (11). Prodorsal shield 33 (33–34), 55 (55–60) wide, ornamentation same as female. Tubercles sc slightly ahead of rear shield margin, 24 (23–25) apart; setae sc absent. Leg I 39 (37–40), femora 12 (11–13), setae bv absent; genua 7 (6–7), setae l 27 (27–37); tibiae 13 (11–13), setae l’ 7 (6–7); tarsi 9 (8–9), setae ft’ 19 (19–24), setae ft 27 (26–27); setae u’ 5 (5–6); solenidia 6 (6–7), knobbed distally; empodia divided, 7 (6–7), 5 rayed on each side. Leg II 37 (37–38), femora 12 (12– 13), setae bv absent; genua 6 (5–6), setae l 11 (10–12); tibiae 12 (10–12); tarsi 7 (7–9), setae ft’ 7 (5–7), setae ft 26 (24–26); setae u’ 5 (4–5); solenidia 7 (6–7), knobbed distally; empodia divided, 6 (6–7), 5 rayed on each side. Coxae ornamented same as female. Setae 1b 13 (13), 12 (12) apart; setae 1a 15 (12–15), 11 (11) apart; setae 2a 47 (41–47), 28 (23–29) apart; tubercles 1b and 1a 9 (6–9) apart; tubercles 1a and 2a 10 (9–10) apart. Coxigenital region with 9 (9) annuli. Opisthosoma with 50 (50–53) dorsal annuli, sometimes with a weakly developed medial ridge, 78 (73–79) ventral annuli (65 (60–66) if they are counted from the posterior margin of the genital chamber), microtubercles same as female. Setae c2 26 (26–36), on annulus 16 (15–17) (3 (2–4) from behind the genital chamber), 55 (46–58) apart; setae d 42 (42–62), on annulus 28 (28–29) (15 (15–16) from behind the genital chamber), 39 (33–39) apart; setae e 28 (28–54), on annulus 47 (44–47) (34 (31–34) from behind the genital chamber), 23 (20–23) apart; setae f 38 (35–40), on annulus 67 (66–70) (54 (50–57) from behind the genital chamber), 25 (25–29) apart, 12 (11–12) from rear. Setae h2 65 (60–80), 11 (9–11) apart; setae h1 absent, represented by a small tubercle, 7 (6–7) apart; h2 and h1 tubercles 2 (2–3) apart. Genital shield ornamented with fine granules, 17 (16–22), 22 (17–23) wide. Setae 3a 8 (6–8), 18 (15–19) apart.</p>
            <p> Host plant.  Rubus fruticosus . </p>
            <p>Relation to the host. Vagrant on both leaf surfaces causing no apparent damage.</p>
            <p>Type locality. South East of England, Kent, Tonbridge, commercial plant nursery site, 07.x.2009.</p>
            <p>Type material. Holotype female, on one slide, and nine further paratype slides, each of one specimen, have been deposited at the Natural History Museum, London. Twenty-eight paratype slides, each of one specimen, have been retained in the collections of Fera. Five paratype slides, each of one specimen, are deposited with the second author, Bari University, Italy.</p>
            <p>Etymology. The specific name is derived from the Latin acarus and rubrum meaning ‘mite of blackberry’.</p>
            <p> Discussion. This is the sixth species to be described in the genus  Asetadiptacus , the other five being:  Asetadiptacus emiliae Carmona, 1971 from  Ficus carica L. (  Moraceae ), Portugal;  Asetadiptacus salvifoliae de Lillo, 1997 from  Cistus salvifolius L. (  Cistaceae ), Italy;  Asetadiptacus indosasae Kuang, 2001 from  Indosasa crassiflora McClure (Poaceae) , China;  Asetadiptacus carmonae Umapathy &amp; Mohanasundarum, 2002 from  Salacia sp. (Celastaceae), India; and  Asetadiptacus phaeostictaus Huang &amp; Wang, 2009 from  Prunus phaeosticta (Hance) Maxim. (Rosaceae) , Taiwan. </p>
            <p> Asetadiptacus acarubri was found in very high numbers with adult females, males and immature stages present, and apart from uneven ripening of the fruit caused by  A. essigi , no other host symptoms were observed on the plant material examined. </p>
            <p> Differential diagnosis. Having examined all of the original descriptions,  Asetadiptacus acarubri is clearly different to the five species already assigned to this genus. However, it is most similar to  A. emiliae and  A. salvifoliae :  A. emiliae differs by having fewer opisthosomal annuli (45 dorsal and 64 ventral), by having a different prodorsal shield pattern with fewer anterolateral cells, and by having much longer legs (leg I 55 –60, leg II 55 –56), and 5-rayed empodia;  A. salvifoliae differs by having a different prodorsal shield pattern with less regularly aligned cells, by having a smaller female genital coverflap (12, 23 wide), and generally with more dorsal opisthosomal annuli (54–74). </p>
            <p>Additional remarks. For this species, the annuli lateral to the coxae-genital region were difficult to discern and then determine which were true annuli. There were often scattered microtubercles, artifacts, and annuli joining into one, therefore the annuli could appear to be variable in number on each side. It was more consistent to count the ventral semi-annuli from the first complete semi-annulus from behind the genital chamber.</p>
            <p> In the original generic description of  Asetadiptacus, Carmona (1971) stated “This new genus differs from the close genus  Diptacus by the absence of the dorsal setae, by the absence of a strong sternal ridge as a separation of the forecoxae and the abdomen has no dorsal ridge. It is characterized by divided featherclaw, all leg segments are present and the dorsal tubercles are present but no setae [sic]”. The final generic condition has been respected in  A. indosasae , with the presence of sc tubercles, but the species is described as having femoral setae on leg II. The generic conditions are not fully respected in  A. carmonae , which is described as having the sc tubercles absent and the femoral setae present on leg II. Both  A. indosasae and  A. carmonae require careful re-examination to establish their correct generic assignment, or the generic description should be revised. Based on the current generic assignment, a key to the world species of  Asetadiptacus is presented below. </p>
        </div>
    </body>
</html>
	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D76920FF9AFFE028CDFC1DFF7F8C10	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Pye, Daniel R. L.;Lillo, Enrico De	Pye, Daniel R. L., Lillo, Enrico De (2010): A review of the eriophyoid mites (Acari: Eriophyoidea) on Rubus spp. in Britain, with a new species (Diptilomiopidae) and two new records. Zootaxa 2677: 15-26, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.199254
03D76920FF99FFE128CDFA53FADB8A2C.text	03D76920FF99FFE128CDFA53FADB8A2C.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Trimeroptes rubi Bagdasarian 1976	<html xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
    <body>
        <div>
            <p> Trimeroptes rubi Bagdasarian, 1976</p>
            <p>(Fig. 7)</p>
            <p> Type host and locality.  Rubus sp., Armenia. </p>
            <p> Distribution. Armenia (Bagdasarian &amp; Pogosova, 1976), England (recorded here) and Italy (from  R. fruticosus ) (de Lillo, 1997). </p>
            <p>Relation to the host. Va g ra n t.</p>
            <p> Collection data. England, Kent, Tonbridge, commercial plant nursery site, low numbers of adult females, males and nymphs found on the underside of the leaves of  R. fruticosus , 07.x.2009. No damage symptoms were observed on the plant material examined. </p>
            <p>Remarks. This is the first published record of this species from plant material growing in Britain.</p>
        </div>
    </body>
</html>
	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D76920FF99FFE128CDFA53FADB8A2C	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Pye, Daniel R. L.;Lillo, Enrico De	Pye, Daniel R. L., Lillo, Enrico De (2010): A review of the eriophyoid mites (Acari: Eriophyoidea) on Rubus spp. in Britain, with a new species (Diptilomiopidae) and two new records. Zootaxa 2677: 15-26, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.199254
03D76920FF96FFEE28CDFBDEFDFD88BB.text	03D76920FF96FFEE28CDFBDEFDFD88BB.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Aceria silvicola (Canestrini 1892) Canestrini 1892	<html xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
    <body>
        <div>
            <p> Aceria silvicola (Canestrini, 1892)</p>
            <p> Type host and locality.  Rubus saxatilis L., Canestrini (1892) reported this species from the woods of Trentino, Italy, whilst Amrine &amp; Stasny (1994) reported it from Southern Tirol, Austria. </p>
            <p>Distribution. Widespread in the Palearctic region (Skoracka et al., 2005; de Lillo, 2004).</p>
            <p>Relation to the host. Gall-making: it causes irregularly shaped pustules raised on both leaf surfaces, often reddish on the upper side, yellow-green on the under side with an oval opening.</p>
            <p> Remarks. Recorded once by Bagnall and Harrison (1928) on  R. saxatilis L. No further collection details were given, only references to Nalepa (1898), von Schlechtandal (1916) and Houard No. 3031 (1909) were provided. The identification was made on observed damage symptoms alone and cannot be verified, an issue discussed by Ostojá-Starzewski (2008). </p>
        </div>
    </body>
</html>
	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D76920FF96FFEE28CDFBDEFDFD88BB	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Pye, Daniel R. L.;Lillo, Enrico De	Pye, Daniel R. L., Lillo, Enrico De (2010): A review of the eriophyoid mites (Acari: Eriophyoidea) on Rubus spp. in Britain, with a new species (Diptilomiopidae) and two new records. Zootaxa 2677: 15-26, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.199254
03D76920FF96FFEF28CDF9FBFD7F8C12.text	03D76920FF96FFEF28CDF9FBFD7F8C12.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Epitrimerus gibbosus (Nalepa 1892) Nalepa 1892	<html xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
    <body>
        <div>
            <p> Epitrimerus gibbosus (Nalepa, 1892)</p>
            <p> Type host and locality.  R. fruticosus , Austria. </p>
            <p>Distribution. Widespread in the Palearctic region (de Lillo, 2004; Skoracka et al., 2005).</p>
            <p>Relation to the host. Gall-making: greyish-white erineum along veins, may extend to cover most of the upper or lower leaf surface.</p>
            <p> Remarks.  Epitrimerus gibbosus has been recorded in England as follows: by Swanton (1912) from  R. plicatus Wheine &amp; Nees ; by Bagnall and Harrison (1928) on  R. fruticosus from an unspecified location; by Burkhill (1930) on  R. echinatus Lindl. from an unspecified location; by Niblett (1959) 11 times from the London area, on  Rubus spp; by Turk (1953), who listed  E. gibbosus as Species Incertae Sedis; and by Robbins (1997) on an unspecified host from Warwickshire.  Epitrimerus gibbosus has been recorded three times by the British Plant Gall Society from Herefordshire, Surrey and Isle of Wight (Janet Boyd, pers. comm., 2009). These records were made on observed damage symptoms alone and cannot be verified. Massee (1931) confirmed the presence of this species in England on 28 different species of  Rubus , including the cultivated blackberries and reported it again (Massee, 1961) as causing “mottling of leaves” on  Rubus spp. from East Malling, Kent. He reported it as being “common”. </p>
        </div>
    </body>
</html>
	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D76920FF96FFEF28CDF9FBFD7F8C12	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Pye, Daniel R. L.;Lillo, Enrico De	Pye, Daniel R. L., Lillo, Enrico De (2010): A review of the eriophyoid mites (Acari: Eriophyoidea) on Rubus spp. in Britain, with a new species (Diptilomiopidae) and two new records. Zootaxa 2677: 15-26, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.199254
03D76920FF97FFEF28CDFE22FA978E51.text	03D76920FF97FFEF28CDFE22FA978E51.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Eriophyes rubicolens (Canestrini 1891) Canestrini 1891	<html xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
    <body>
        <div>
            <p> Eriophyes rubicolens (Canestrini, 1891)</p>
            <p> Type host and locality.  R. fruticosus , Italy. </p>
            <p>Distribution. Czech Republic (Vaneckova-Skuhrava, 1996), Denmark (Liro &amp; Roivainen, 1952), France (Nalepa, 1898) and Italy (Canestrini, 1891).</p>
            <p>Relation to the host. Gall-making: causes erinea on the foliage.</p>
            <p>Remarks. Recorded in England: by Bagnall and Harrison (1928) from an unspecified host, with no collection information provided, only reference to Nalepa (1898) and Houard No. 3027 (1909) was given; by Turk (1953); and by Ecott (2006) on “bramble” and recorded as causing a “raised bulge on leaf”. These records were all made on observed damage symptoms alone and cannot be confirmed or verified.</p>
        </div>
    </body>
</html>
	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D76920FF97FFEF28CDFE22FA978E51	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Pye, Daniel R. L.;Lillo, Enrico De	Pye, Daniel R. L., Lillo, Enrico De (2010): A review of the eriophyoid mites (Acari: Eriophyoidea) on Rubus spp. in Britain, with a new species (Diptilomiopidae) and two new records. Zootaxa 2677: 15-26, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.199254
