Riedlinia (Trombigastia) cadei

Riedlinia (Trombigastia) cadei (Vercammen-Grandjean and Brennan, 1957) (Figs. 5C, 7) Trombigastia cadei Vercammen-Grandjean and Brennan, 1957: 487, figs. 5–6; Stekolnikov 2018: 118. Trombigastia (Trombigastia) cadei: Vercammen-Grandjean & Fain 1958: 26, pls. 1–2; Zumpt 1961: 143. Riedlinia (Trombigastia) cadei: Vercammen-Grandjean 1964: 314; 1965b: 130. Diagnosis. SIF = 7B-N-3-3111.0000; fCx = 1.1.1; fSt = 2.2; fPp = B/B/BBB; PL> AL ≥ AM; fD = 2H-6-6-6+(9–14); DS = 29–34; V = 39–42; NDV = 68–76 (in type series, fD = 2H-8-6-6-8-8-6-2; DS = 46; V = 42; NDV = 88); scutum nearly rectangular, its posterior margin straight, with cuticular striations; ALs inserted in projected anterolateral corners; sensillary bases situated anterior to level of PLs by 11–14 µm; sensilla barbed, slightly expanded, but not thicker than other scutal setae; Ip = 819–848 (785 according to original description). Standard measurements are given in Table 4. Note. *—three examined specimens (N = 1 for S 1 and S 2); **—after Vercammen-Grandjean & Brennan (1957) and Vercammen-Grandjean & Fain (1958). Distribution and hosts. This species was described from Ngong, southern Kenya, ex Miniopterus sp. (Chiroptera: Miniopteridae). Here I report it from South Africa and ex Rhinolophus clivosus Cretzschmar (Chiroptera: Rhinolophidae) for the first time. Material examined. Three specimens, NM 6544/1–3, L = 856, Maritzburg, Natal (Pietermaritzburg, KwaZulu-Natal Prov.), South Africa, ex R. clivosus, August 1956, collector Lawrence, prepared by Vercammen-Grandjean (Fig. 1, 14). Remarks. The examined specimens differ from the original description in the presence of six setae in 1 st posthumeral row vs. eight, lesser DS (29–34 vs. 46) and NDV (68–76 vs. 88). Taxonomic significance of these differences is unclear; examination of a new material is required to establish if the South African R. (T.) cadei deserves the status of species or subspecies. Somewhat shorter PL (54–59 vs. 64), H (50–54 vs. 64), and D max (47–49 vs. 58) in the examined specimens fit the usual range of the intraspecific variation in chiggers. Some setae of the palpal tarsus look nude in the examined specimens vs. well-branched in the figure from the original description, but this could be caused by a suboptimal quality of the slides from NM.