# Mites.



## Flower (Apr 16, 2009)

I picked up a Togo Starburst today. When I got home I noticed there where white mites crawling on the substrate and on a dead cricket in the enclosure. I put the spider in a new enclosure, which I was gonna do anyways. There seems to be no mites on it, just in the old substrate, which I threw away.

I have heard mites on tarantulas as being so small they are hard to see and almost standing still. These were deffinately visable and definately moving -- sort of like rodent mites for those of you that have handled them -- they're common in LPS rats and mice.

Should I be worried? 

The spider seems fine, and is really beautiful, by the way.  I got it for $20...


----------



## rvtjonny (Apr 16, 2009)

had the same problem a few days ago in 3 of my 4 setups, everybody said its nothing to worry about but i freaked out and re did them all, new coco peat and washed everything good.  

read my post, some good stuff in there
http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showthread.php?t=150951


----------



## gvfarns (Apr 16, 2009)

The typical harmful mites we get need a lot of humidity to live.  Dry tarantula enclosures kill them off pretty well.  Changing out the substrate works pretty well to eliminate them, and dry new substrate (with no carrion) keeps them from coming back.

Mites suck, but in my experience it's more a problem in warm, humid roach enclosures, which also have starchy food in them.


----------



## Bill S (Apr 16, 2009)

As with many of the "mite" posting here, the "white mites" you saw were most likely _Colembolla_ - not mites at all, and not in any way harmful to the tarantula.  I think most of the mite scares posted on this board are due to the fact that many people think that everything tiny must be a mite, and that all mites are dangerous to tarantulas.  Both ideas are very wrong.


----------



## Pacmaster (Apr 16, 2009)

Me myself, I wouldnt worry about anything you dont see directly on/attached to the tarantula itself.

Bill, still waiting for an oppurtunity to get those ones to ya, they are still there on the sling but move around it quite a bit now.
The sling has been in a dry empty cube, they still aint died.

I been meaning to ask, I used to use diatomacious earth to rid my snakes of mites, would that stuff also harm the sling?

For those that dont know, diatomacious earth has teeny tiny micro-microscopic particles that have very sharp edges that irritate the mites(and other insects I been told) and eventually causes them to let go and/or kills them.

Heres an excerpt from wiki . . .

_Diatomite is also used as an insecticide, due to its physico-sorptive properties. The fine powder absorbs lipids from the waxy outer layer of insects' exoskeletons, causing them to dehydrate. Arthropods die as a result of the water pressure deficiency, based on Fick's law of diffusion. This also works against gastropods and is commonly employed in gardening to defeat slugs. However, since slugs inhabit humid environments, efficacy is very low. It is sometimes mixed with an attractant or other additives to increase its effectiveness. Medical-grade diatomite is sometimes used to de-worm both animals and humans. It is most commonly used in lieu of boric acid, and can be used to help control and eventually eliminate a cockroach infestation. This material has wide application in control of insects of grain storage.

Disadvantages of using diatomaceous earth for pest control include the health risk to humans (see below), and the harm it does to many beneficial insects, including predatory beetles and bugs and many detritivores._


----------



## Pacmaster (Apr 16, 2009)

People, dont go rushing out to the fishstore and dunk your Ts in a bag of DE, I was just thinking out loud, it looks like it would do more harm than good to a T.


----------



## Flower (Apr 16, 2009)

Yeah, I'm not too concerned because nothing appears to actually be on my spider. But I figured an ask was worth it just to be sure.

The new Togo is sooo cute. I just spied it grooming itself.


----------



## Bill S (Apr 17, 2009)

Pacmaster said:


> People, dont go rushing out to the fishstore and dunk your Ts in a bag of DE, I was just thinking out loud, it looks like it would do more harm than good to a T.


Looks like you answered your own question before I saw it.

And - as has been posted elsewhere - parasitic mites do not require humidity to live.  They get their moisture by drinking it from their host.  A dry substrate might help limit their ability to breed - but if the environment is good for the tarantula, it will be good for the mite that parasitizes the tarantula.  Keep in mind that parasites and their hosts co-evolve in the same environment.  I live in the Sonoran Desert, and we routinely find insects with mites attached.  A couple weeks ago we even found a mite - under a rock on the west facing slope of a dry desert hill - that had a parasitic mite attached to it.  And in the same location we found a predacious mite on top of a rock in the noon-day sun.


----------



## gvfarns (Apr 17, 2009)

Bill S said:


> Looks like you answered your own question before I saw it.
> 
> And - as has been posted elsewhere - parasitic mites do not require humidity to live.  They get their moisture by drinking it from their host.  A dry substrate might help limit their ability to breed - but if the environment is good for the tarantula, it will be good for the mite that parasitizes the tarantula.  Keep in mind that parasites and their hosts co-evolve in the same environment.  I live in the Sonoran Desert, and we routinely find insects with mites attached.  A couple weeks ago we even found a mite - under a rock on the west facing slope of a dry desert hill - that had a parasitic mite attached to it.  And in the same location we found a predacious mite on top of a rock in the noon-day sun.


Hmm.  Must not be the same mites that decimated my roach enclosures.  Those started in the water dishes and stayed in the wettest areas, killed almost everything that was in the moist enclosures and never appeared in the dry ones.  Then when I moved the roaches into a dry enclosure that is otherwise the same, the mites died off and never re-appeared.

Mites are a diverse bunch.  Basically anything we have to strain to see we call a mite.  I'm pretty sure the ones in my enclosure were not parasitic per se, but the result was the same.  They were really tiny and tan.  I'm also pretty sure the mites I have experienced and worry about need a lot of humidity.

Edit: I've never lost a T to mites.  Maybe the ones that housed my roaches don't pose a threat to tarantulas.  Maybe.


----------



## Neophyte (Apr 17, 2009)

Parasitic is a key word. There are some mites that cling onto spiders but cause them zero harm.


----------



## gvfarns (Apr 17, 2009)

I'm not an expert on mites, but my understanding is that common mites start out eating rotting stuff, bug leftovers, and grain (as in a roach enclosure) but then they multiply and get all over everything, and only eventually, when there are tons of them, they crawl in the booklungs or in their mouth, or something and get all over your pet or feeder, eventually causing their death.  

I'm pretty certain the mites that killed my roaches were not exclusive parasites--I'm not even sure how they killed them.  But kill them they did, and they were caused more than zero harm.

Someone in the other forum was saying white lice that are relatively faster moving are harmless, but the itty bitty ivory colored ones can become very harmful.  Mine were ivory, so my experience corroborates that.


----------



## Bill S (Apr 17, 2009)

gvfarns said:


> Hmm.  Must not be the same mites that decimated my roach enclosures.


Again, parasites co-evolve with their hosts.  Roaches do live in damp areas, hence any mite that parasitizes them will prefer a similar habitat.  These are not the ones that will parasitize tarantulas.  IF they were parasitic!  You can cultivate scavenger types of mites in damp containers, and they will certainly not do well in a clean dry container.  But such mites will not "decimate" an enclosure - they'll only eat the garbage that's in there.


----------



## Pacmaster (Apr 17, 2009)

Thers all kindsa crawlies in any substrate . . .

Like I said, I dont worry about it till I see one attched to something alive.


----------



## Bill S (Apr 17, 2009)

gvfarns said:


> I'm not an expert on mites, but my understanding is that common mites start out eating rotting stuff, bug leftovers, and grain (as in a roach enclosure) but then they multiply and get all over everything, and only eventually, when there are tons of them, they crawl in the booklungs or in their mouth, or something and get all over your pet or feeder, eventually causing their death.


Well, I'd agree that you aren't an expert on them.  (No insult intended - but you're right.)  You're understanding of mite life cycles is incorrect.  I guess the first point is that there is no such species as "the common mite".  Instead, there are many thousands of species of mites, each with its own specialty.  There are indeed parasitic mites that prey on tarantulas and other types of spiders - but they start off as such except at possibly a phoretic larval stage.  And they don't multiply on garbage until they are so numerous that they swarm into a tarantula's book lungs.  



> I'm pretty certain the mites that killed my roaches were not exclusive parasites--I'm not even sure how they killed them.  But kill them they did, and they were caused more than zero harm.


Without knowing what killed your roaches, and whether mites were involved in any way - or for that matter if the tiny animals present were truly mites - I really can't address this issue.  It could just as well have been some caging conditions that allowed the "mites" to proliferate and those same conditions may have contributed to the death of the roaches.  Again, without data, assumptions don't go far.



> Someone in the other forum was saying white *lice* that are relatively faster moving are harmless, but the itty bitty ivory colored ones can become very harmful.  Mine were ivory, so my experience corroborates that.


Note that the emphasis on lice is mine.  Lice are not related to mites.  Very different animals.  Lice are insects, mites are arachnids.  And yes, lice move faster than mites.


----------



## gvfarns (Apr 18, 2009)

Bill S said:


> Well, I'd agree that you aren't an expert on them.  (No insult intended - but you're right.)  You're understanding of mite life cycles is incorrect.  I guess the first point is that there is no such species as "the common mite".  Instead, there are many thousands of species of mites, each with its own specialty.  There are indeed parasitic mites that prey on tarantulas and other types of spiders - but they start off as such except at possibly a phoretic larval stage.  And they don't multiply on garbage until they are so numerous that they swarm into a tarantula's book lungs.
> 
> Without knowing what killed your roaches, and whether mites were involved in any way - or for that matter if the tiny animals present were truly mites - I really can't address this issue.  It could just as well have been some caging conditions that allowed the "mites" to proliferate and those same conditions may have contributed to the death of the roaches.  Again, without data, assumptions don't go far.
> 
> Note that the emphasis on lice is mine.  Lice are not related to mites.  Very different animals.  Lice are insects, mites are arachnids.  And yes, lice move faster than mites.


So you are a mite-xpert, then?  It seems like you are being awfully dismissive of empirical evidence and very universal in your statements, which is not a characteristic of people who are actually experts, especially in a field where there are so many possibilities.  Certainly not every tiny little critter is a "mite", and with thousands of species of mite and I'm sure many other species of small animals we might call a "mite" because we've never put them under a microscope I have a hard time believing you could know that what I have described cannot happen.

What I saw was tiny little dudes, smaller than grains of normal sand, congregating around the water and food (which were close together).  I thought it was no big deal.  Later I saw them en mass on a roach that had died.  No big deal, I thought, they are just scavenging.  Some time passed and they were all over in there, especially on the roaches.  When it happened to my Blaberus roaches I could see them constantly scraping their eyes and face, which were covered in the same little organisms.  I know they were mobile (and not some fungus or something) since when I exposed the water dish to bright light, they all moved out of the light and after a few minutes congregated in the shaded areas.  Then there were some mass die offs.  I moved the living roaches to a new enclosure that was identical except drier.  Some of the remaining roaches died, but the rest survived and are now making a comeback.  The mites never appeared in the dry container.  

Is it possible that something was amiss in the container that caused both mite proliferation and roach death? Yes, but it doesn't seem real likely, especially since it happened twice, to different species, a year apart and in both cases there were no changes in their environment over time.  Also I have had a number of colonies of different roaches over some time and never had significant deaths that were not preceded and accompanied by mites, nor significant mite infestations without roach deaths.  If it is coincidence that the two happened at the same time, it's some coincidence.  If both are caused by the same environmental factor, then my suggestion that you resolve the issue by keeping your pets dry is still valid, since that both stopped roach deaths and the proliferation of the pests I experienced.  But I think that's the less likely case.

Do mites start out in the water and food dishes and later move to the roaches?  Yes, for sure.  I saw that in both cases.  I don't know by what mechanism the roaches died, but I know the mites were all over them for some time before they died. It seems to me that the mites were more than just casually involved.

Wherever you got your information and whatever you know about mites, I hope it's not just enough to make you start to think that there are no more things in heaven and earth than are already dreampt of in your philosophy.  On the boards we share experiences that we have had so others can learn.  I think my experience is more useful to other hobbyists than your blanket statement that mites do not move from scavenging to clinging on our pets, that they can't hurt insects and spiders by entering booklungs (which I only suggested as a possible mechanism because I read it elsewhere), and your implication that the only mites we need worry about are exclusively parasitic in nature.  And of course, I made no reference to the life cycle of mites except that they reproduce like no one's business.  If you were thinking that I suggested that they scavenge in one phase of life and then move on to be a danger to our pets, you misunderstood what I said.  In fact, what I meant was that the mites are not parasitic in nature, so if you have only a few on your pets it's no big deal, but when there are tons they can begin to get in the way of important body functions on the part of the roach.  That's my proposed explanation for what I have observed.  I don't think my circumstances were so unique that no one else on the boards has or will experience the same thing.  And it so happens that I know the solution to the situation.

The lice thing, of course, was a typo.


----------



## biomarine2000 (Apr 18, 2009)

*Bill*

I for one mean no disrespect or sarcasm if it comes across that way.  I think since you seem to know the most about mites, maybe you should start a new thread about just mites.  Type up some type of educational thread.  Maybe we can get the mods to make it a sticky.  It is extremely hard to find any revelant information about mites from anyone that actually knows what they are talking about, or even consistant in their explination.  (And that doesn't mean anyone from this post).  I am merely talking about other sites and searching for answers via search engines.  I would love to have a lot of education about them.


----------



## Bill S (Apr 18, 2009)

gvfarns said:


> So you are a mite-xpert, then?


I have never claimed to be a mite expert, and I certainly am not one.  But I do seem to have a better understanding of them than many of the people who post here about them.  (And that's unfortunate - it reflects less on my knowledge than in other people's superstitions.)

I do get involved with catching and documenting mites - more than I really want to, if the truth be known.  But the result is that I am more familiar with them and know a little more about their natural history.

I also have some familarity with insects, and with biology in general, which helps when I see descriptions of situations described on this board.  And I've been keeping animals for about half a century, and have seen or made many of the mistakes that people here are making.  Again, this does not mean I'm an expert, but I do have some knowledge and experience.



> What I saw was tiny little dudes, smaller than grains of normal sand, congregating around the water and food (which were close together).  I thought it was no big deal.  Later I saw them en mass on a roach that had died.  No big deal, I thought, they are just scavenging.  Some time passed and they were all over in there, especially on the roaches.  When it happened to my Blaberus roaches I could see them constantly scraping their eyes and face, which were covered in the same little organisms. ....


OK.  Now we can look specifically at your case.  First, it's obvious that there's an environmental condition that allows this "pest population" to proliferate.  Mites do not tend to bloom like this.  Very likely you had Collembola, which would behave in exactly the manner you describe if your cage conditions were a bit too damp and there were decaying food left in there.  They will not hurt your roaches, although I'm sure your roaches were annoyed to have these guys crawling all over them.  (I would be too.)  

Collembola are very common animals, and if people on this board would take a little time to familiarize themselves with them, more than half the false alarms over mites would cease.  It will vary in different parts of the country, but one place that I can always count on finding Collembola is in large flower pots or planters that have been kept damp.  Water such a pot with enough water to flood it and Collembola will appear on the surface.  Usually grey or white, and fast moving.  They are scavengers on decaying material, especially plant material.



> Do mites start out in the water and food dishes and later move to the roaches?  Yes, for sure.  I saw that in both cases.


Again, I'm going to say "no".  What you saw were almost certainly not mites.  You had a Collembola population, and that would start exactly the way you describe.  They are so common that you probably always have a few living in your roach colonies (I've always got them in my cricket colonies).  And when conditions allow, they multiply rapidly.



> I think my experience is more useful to other hobbyists than your blanket statement that mites do not move from scavenging to clinging on our pets, that they can't hurt insects and spiders by entering booklungs (which I only suggested as a possible mechanism because I read it elsewhere),....


I'll agree with you only half-way on this.  Your experience would have done some good if you had recognized what the real problem was and reported it as such.  But reporting it as a mite infestation and speculating on some unusual cause-and-effect perpetuated some of the superstitions that are already too abundant here.  Sorry if I sound like I'm beating you up on this - I don't mean to dum on you or insult you.  I'm really more interested in getting some more practical understandings out there.

Also, my statement that these animals will not reach flood capacity and start moving into book lungs still stands.  



> The lice thing, of course, was a typo.


OK.  But it was coser to the mark than you may have realized.  The "lice" or "mites" were actually Collembola.


----------



## Bill S (Apr 18, 2009)

biomarine2000 said:


> I for one mean no disrespect or sarcasm if it comes across that way.  I think since you seem to know the most about mites, maybe you should start a new thread about just mites.  Type up some type of educational thread.  Maybe we can get the mods to make it a sticky.



No sarcasm taken.  As I mentioned in my previous post - I don't claim to be an expert.  But you are right - a sticky with some REAL info would be very useful.  I'm willing to put something together - but it will take a while.  When I do have something ready, I'll offer it.  Meanwhile if someone else can take on such a project, go for it.


----------



## skips (Apr 18, 2009)

"Mites (Acari: Penthaleidae) are the most regular and important
pests of canola in Australia, in a way analogous to the crucifer
flea beetle, Phyllotreta cruciferae (Groeze), which attacks
canola crops in Europe and North America (Burgess 1977).
There are several species of mites that can incur severe damage
to canola seedlings, threatening crop establishment across all
production regions. Both the nymphs and adults rupture the
surface of cotyledons and leaves, removing cell contents, and
their infestations cause the plants to wilt and die, especially if
environmental conditions are unfavourable for the growth of
canola plants (Miles & McDonald 1999).
The mite species attacking canola in Australia include the
redlegged earth mite, Halotydeus destructor (Tucker) and at
least three species of blue oat mites, i.e. Penthaleus major
(Dugès), P. falcatus (Qin & Halliday) and P. tectus sp. n. (Qin
& Halliday 1995; Weeks et al. 1995; Halliday 2005). Halotydeus
destructor is known as the most destructive seedling pest
of canola, as well as pastures and other winter crops, in southern
Western Australia, South Australia and New South Wales,
and throughout Victoria and Tasmania. In some areas of South
Australia, Victoria and New SouthWales, the complex of blue
oat mites, especially P. falcatus and P. tectus sp. n., are also as
problematical as the redlegged earth mite (Weeks & Hoffmann
1999; Umina & Hoffmann 2004, 2005), whereas in Western
Australia, the clover mite (Bryobia praetiosa) and the balaustium
mite (Balaustium medicagoense) are important pests on
canola seedlings (Stanley & Marcroft 1999; Micic 2005a).
Because H. destructor is also well known as a major pest of
pastures, vegetables and other crops in Australia, South Africa
and New Zealand, its biology and ecology has been extensively
studied and well reviewed (Ridsdill-Smith 1997). In comparison,
the study of Penthaleus spp. has started only recently
(Weeks & Hoffmann 1999). Three Penthaleus species are
known to have some distinguishing characteristics in biology
and life history, although they often coexist with H. destructor
on the same crop plants in some areas of south-eastern Australia.
While H. destructor only reproduces sexually, all three
Penthaleus species are thelytokous parthenogens with the
populations comprised of clones (Weeks et al. 1995; Weeks &
Hoffmann 1998). Penthaleus major and P. falcatus produce
diapause eggs almost immediately after emergence in autumn
and continue to produce such eggs in early winter, although the
first appearance of diapause eggs in P. falcatus is slightly later
in the season than for P. major (Umina & Hoffmann 2003).
Penthaleus tectus sp. n. produces diapause eggs even later than
P. major and P. falcatus, but earlier than H. destructor (Umina
& Hoffmann 2003). The diapause eggs of P. major and
P. falcatus are laid on the soil surface and/or the base of
plants (Umina & Hoffmann 2003). Penthaleus falcatus is the
most common blue oat mite species feeding on canola, but it
has a more specialised range of host plants compared with
H. destructor (Umina & Hoffmann 2004). Penthaleus falcatus
is also the most tolerant of these mites to pesticides whereas
H. destructor is the most susceptible (Umina & Hoffmann
1999; Robinson&Hoffmann 2001). Penthaleus falcatus shows
advantages in competition with other blue oat mite species,
including P. major and P. tectus sp. n. on canola (Umina &
Hoffmann 2005), which may partially explain why it is more
abundant on this crop, although interactions between these mite
species and canola are not yet well understood."

Australian Journal of Entomology Jul2007, Vol. 46 Issue 3, p231-243 


"Our research was designed to determine the effects of a mite complex consisting of the Banks grass mite (BGM),Oligonychus pratensis (Banks), and the two-spotted spider <em class="hilite">mites (TSM),Tetranychus urticae Koch, on <em class="hilite">corn yield and plant lodging. For BGM, mite days and damage rating for the whole plant and leaves in the lower third of a <em class="hilite">corn plant had the best correlation with <em class="hilite">corn yield. The best correlation with yield for TSM was plant damage ratings. The percentage loss per unit for most independent variables (mite densities, mite days, or percentage of the leaf area damaged on a plant) was very similar for BGM and TSM. Therefore, the same economic threshold can be used for either mite species. When TSM fed on <em class="hilite">corn in the dent growth stage, yield was not reduced, and their feeding did not influence <em class="hilite">corn plant lodging.ing."

Experimental and Applied Acarology 
Volume:  	  17
Issue: 	12
Page: 	895 - 903 


Just for a bit of perspective Bill.  Not contradicting you but you seem to make it sound like mites need an animal host. Like they couldn't possibly eat maybe this guy's corn meal or whatever he feeds.  these mites then WOULD NOT parasitize the T or Roaches as they would be adapted to plants only.  Do you really think that many people on this board dont know what collembola are?  That would be sad and I feel it's a bit of an overstatement.


----------



## Bill S (Apr 18, 2009)

skips said:


> Just for a bit of perspective Bill.  Not contradicting you but you seem to make it sound like mites need an animal host. Like they couldn't possibly eat maybe this guy's corn meal or whatever he feeds.  these mites then WOULD NOT parasitize the T or Roaches as they would be adapted to plants only.


Mites that pose a threat to tarantulas need an animal host.  There are many thousands of other mites that are either predatory, scavengers or plant feeders.  None of those pose any threat to tarantulas.  There are also thousands of parasitic mites that prey on animals other than tarantulas, and pose no threat to tarantulas. This has been discussed in many threads in recent months, and NOBODY has suggested that all mites need animal hosts.  I've posted here many times pointing out that not all mites that attach themselves to spiders are parasitic, either.  There are many phoretic mites that merely attach themselves to spiders, beetles or other transport hosts purely as a means of traveling around.  Back a year or so ago my wife and I kept a carrion beetle that had a bunch of phoretic mites attached to it.  When the carrion beetle fed, the mites would climb off the beetle and dive into the food (canned cat food - next best thing to carrion), but the moment the beetle started to leave they would all climb back on board.  As for plant mites - you certainly don't have to go to Australia to find them.  Red spider mites are a major garden pest here in the U.S.  But red spider mites, like the phoretic mites, will never be a threat to tarantulas.

Going back to the case you refer to - what he described in his cockroach enclosure was _Collembola_,  not mites.  Yes, there are mites that can live in a cockroach enclosure, but his description did not match that.  There are mites that could eat rotting corn meal - but again, that's not what he described.  And any mite that does eat corn meal WILL NOT also attack tarantulas.  And they will not get so crowded that they end up moving into the book lungs of the spider.  There are some basic biological concepts involved here, and I'm dismayed that people seem so unaware of them.



> Do you really think that many people on this board dont know what collembola are?  That would be sad and I feel it's a bit of an overstatement.


Sad, maybe.  But still true.  I honestly feel that at least half the false alarms posted here about mites are actually Collembola that the people posting did not recognize.  I'm sure there are many people here who DO know what Collembola are - and they are not the ones posting the mite alarms.  If you take the time to do some searches, I think you'll realize how common these misidentifications are.

_Note: I don't really think it's all that surprising that a lot of people on this board don't recognize Collembola.  The average person on the street probably doesn't, and the people on this board tend to be "average people on the street" who are learning something about tarantulas._


----------



## Serious Sam (Apr 18, 2009)

I have that problem with my female G rosea all i do is transfer her into a diferent cage and theroughly clean then dry her other cage to elimanate them you may want to try that even though they are harmless thay can become a problem if they are alowed to thrive and live on and establish a colony


----------



## skips (Apr 18, 2009)

"This has been discussed in many threads in recent months, and NOBODY has suggested that all mites need animal hosts. I've posted here many times pointing out that not all mites that attach themselves to spiders are parasitic, either. There are many phoretic mites that merely attach themselves to spiders, beetles or other transport hosts purely as a means of traveling around." 

Like I said, I'm not contradicting you.  It was just that when that guy said he had mites in his feed you dismissed it like that was impossible, thus making it seem like the mites had to be parasitic.  I just wanted to make a general point.  Also, the australia story wasn't to say that you'd have to go to australia, just to provide a source that there are many species of non-animal parasitic mites.

 "And any mite that does eat corn meal WILL NOT also attack tarantulas. And they will not get so crowded that they end up moving into the book lungs of the spider. There are some basic biological concepts involved here, and I'm dismayed that people seem so unaware of them."

I agree.  Though you do seem to enjoy pointing out peoples biological knowledge inadequacies in a sometimes unhelpful tone.

"I honestly feel that at least half the false alarms posted here about mites are actually Collembola that the people posting did not recognize."

Fair enough


Maybe you can answer me a question then.  I do have a bit of a mite problem and was planning taking my mites to the lab and using the camera microscope to take pictures for identification purposes.  I've been told to use H. miles as a predatory mite control but I doubt that any one predatory mite could be a cure all for mites unless there is a common parasitic species on roaches that H. miles feed on.  Otherwise, predatory mites are not non-specific predators and buying them would be pointless without knowing if they would eat my specific mites.  Any comments?


----------



## Miss Bianca (Apr 19, 2009)

I just wanted to add, that I would love some _real_ information as mentioned, about _mites_ as well as _collembola_. 
(A sticky would be awesome, and yes I think Bill is well versed and 
educated in the ways of these critters, 
from previous reading I've done of his contributions here.)

I have seen so many images 
(ex: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3421/3197563994_24291aa7df.jpg 
or http://www.gwyddoniaeth.org.uk/graffeg-gwyddoniaeth/Adnoddau/darlith hefin/CollembolaT.jpg )
which look_ nothing_ like the tiny white critters we talk about here), 
not to mention different discussions about how or why, 
and so, it would_ really _help.

OK- Obviously there are hundreds of different kinds but for 99% of users 
on here to assume which kind form in our T enclosures, 
and not ONE image in dozens of pages I googled look like _little white things_,  
I mean clarification would be great.

and also, SERIOUS_SAM, unless the collembola you experienced were on forgotten cricket leftovers, 
they really shouldn't be forming in the enclosure with a Rosea, 
as you mentioned you had, which absolutely love a desert- dry home...


----------



## wedge07 (Apr 19, 2009)

Tortuga I think the only real way to tell the difference between most mites is under a microscope.


----------



## Bill S (Apr 19, 2009)

> I've been told to use H. miles as a predatory mite control but I doubt that any one predatory mite could be a cure all for mites unless there is a common parasitic species on roaches that H. miles feed on.  Otherwise, predatory mites are not non-specific predators and buying them would be pointless without knowing if they would eat my specific mites.  Any comments?


Predatory mites are less specific than parasitic mites.  Picture them as miniature spiders - for the most part, anything they can overpower is potential food.  But size will play a part, as will microhabitat choice and behavior.  A predatory mite that prefers to live under rocks will probably not be a great help in a tarantula cage.  And some predatory mites are large enough that they would probably overlook the parasitic mites you hope to eliminate.  In fact, some would be big enough to get eaten by a tarantula, or could attack a sling.  The biggest limiting factor, though, would probably be availability.  If H. miles is commercially available and has the right size and behavior patterns, then that would be a good set of recommendations.



> Tortuga I think the only real way to tell the difference between most mites is under a microscope.


Pretty much true - but a camera with a good lens can be a great help.  

Just to add some color to this discussion, I've attached a couple pictures of local species of predatory mites.  (My wife was the photographer.)













Not quite the "tiny white things" that get mistaken for mites so often.


----------



## upwith inverts! (Apr 19, 2009)

OH! My turn to ID! Is that a velvet mite? 
(sorry, don't care enough for mites to know the scientific name.)


----------



## Bill S (Apr 19, 2009)

upwith inverts! said:


> OH! My turn to ID! Is that a velvet mite?
> (sorry, don't care enough for mites to know the scientific name.)


Yup.  You got it.  Two species of velvet mites, also known as trombidiid mites. 

I've got a busy day in front of me - got some people coming out to the dojo this morning to practice kyudo, then heading down into the Huachuca Mountains in the afternoon to photograph social spiders.  But I'll try in the next day or so to post more pictures of mites.  For all the "cute fuzzy" of the velvet mites, there are some other predatory mites that would fit well in a sci fi movie.  I'll also see if I can get my wife to photograph some Collembola for comparison.

Meanwhile, anyone want to guess what they are seeing in this picture?


----------



## skips (Apr 19, 2009)

tortuga00 said:


> I have seen so many images
> (ex: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3421/3197563994_24291aa7df.jpg
> or http://www.gwyddoniaeth.org.uk/graffeg-gwyddoniaeth/Adnoddau/darlith hefin/CollembolaT.jpg )
> which look_ nothing_ like the tiny white critters we talk about here),
> ...


Hmmm...ok, then I concede that a good number of people here don't know what a mite looks like.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but all of the species of parasitic mite that I've seen that could be an invertebrate pest really are very tiny white things.  Under a microscope they are clearly translucent arachnids.  Really, It shouldn't be hard to eye ball it and tell if it's collembola or a mite.  You just wouldn't be able to tell the species of mite. 

Bill, do you even think a microscope would be conclusive?  In my experience with inverts that small you would need to dissect genitals or even to DNA testing.


----------



## upwith inverts! (Apr 19, 2009)

An MM sicariidae?(six eyed crab spider)


----------



## Bill S (Apr 19, 2009)

upwith inverts! said:


> An MM sicariidae?(six eyed crab spider)


_Olios fasciculata_ - giant crab spider - but with a face full of phoretic (not parasitic) mites.  The thing to look for here is where the mites are attaching.  In this case they have attached to smooth surfaces.  Parasitic mites would have homed in on joints or places where their mouth parts could have penetrated.  Phoretic mites attach merely as a means of "hitching a ride".  A crab spider moves a lot faster than these little mites can, so using the spider as a means of dispersal helps distribute the mites to new territories.


----------



## Bill S (Apr 19, 2009)

skips said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but all of the species of parasitic mite that I've seen that could be an invertebrate pest really are very tiny white things.


Are you dealing with preserved specimens?  I don't see many white parasitic mites.  Seems to me that red, orange or brown are more common around here.  



> Bill, do you even think a microscope would be conclusive?  In my experience with inverts that small you would need to dissect genitals or even to DNA testing.


If you are going to get serious about the taxonomy, yes.  But I don't think it's really important to get accurate species identifications for the people on this board.  They mostly want to know if the mites are from a group likely to be parasitic on tarantulas, and for that they might not need to get much further than family level.


----------



## upwith inverts! (Apr 19, 2009)

Someone should make a might family dichotomous key.


----------



## Miss Bianca (Apr 19, 2009)

skips said:


> Hmmm...ok, then I concede that a good number of people here don't know what a mite looks like.
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but all of the species of parasitic mite that I've seen that could be an invertebrate pest really are very tiny white things.  Under a microscope they are clearly translucent arachnids.  Really, It shouldn't be hard to eye ball it and tell if it's collembola or a mite.  You just wouldn't be able to tell the species of mite.
> 
> Bill, do you even think a microscope would be conclusive?  In my experience with inverts that small you would need to dissect genitals or even to DNA testing.



I'd have to agree.... sadly....

and Bill... this is turning into a duplicate of that thread a few weeks back is it not??? I mean the same pics and all.


----------



## JonT (Apr 19, 2009)

Bill S said:


> Meanwhile, anyone want to guess what they are seeing in this picture?


See http://www.arachnophiles.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=6660 Post #35 on Page 3.


----------



## Bill S (Apr 19, 2009)

JonT said:


> See http://www.arachnophiles.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=6660 Post #35 on Page 3.


Thanks for the link.  Sounds like a very similar mite.  In the case of the _Olios_ in the picture - the spider was wild caught with the mites already on it.  The picture was taken shortly after capture.  As described in the message you referenced, the mites were phoretic larvae and dropped off within a day or so.  The spider was released back where it came from, minus a faceful of mites.  While in captivity it showed no discomfort or problems with the mites being present.


----------



## Bill S (Apr 19, 2009)

tortuga00 said:


> and Bill... this is turning into a duplicate of that thread a few weeks back is it not??? I mean the same pics and all.


The pics have appeared before, and will probably appear again when relevant.  The thread is, finally, going in a few new directions, although the theme is old and oft repeated.  If the repetition bothers you - well, get used to it.  I'd bet there will be more threads along similar lines in the near future.  I will be very surprised if we don't see another _Collembola_ population reported as a mite infestation within the next couple weeks.


----------



## skips (Apr 19, 2009)

Bill S said:


> Are you dealing with preserved specimens?  I don't see many white parasitic mites.  Seems to me that red, orange or brown are more common around here.
> 
> 
> 
> If you are going to get serious about the taxonomy, yes.  But I don't think it's really important to get accurate species identifications for the people on this board.  They mostly want to know if the mites are from a group likely to be parasitic on tarantulas, and for that they might not need to get much further than family level.


Nope, I just had some last week on a lateralis, put them under a microscope just for kicks because they look cool.  We've had them a few times in scorpion enclosures in our animal room on campus as well.  All pretty much the same, though I assume the ones on the scorps on campus were from the crickets we fed.  Ok, maybe they weren't necessarily parasitizing the scorpion.  They were probably just hitching a ride.

I just made the taxonomy comment because someone made a comment about the only way to differentiate between them was under a microscope.  I took that as identification at the species level, which would probably not be able to be done even with a scope. 

As for a dichotomous key, if it can be done, it has, but i'm positive they'd be such subtle differences you wouldn't be able to use it anyway unless you were darn good.  I doubt morphology would cut it though.


----------



## Bill S (Apr 20, 2009)

skips said:


> Nope, I just had some last week on a lateralis, put them under a microscope just for kicks because they look cool.  We've had them a few times in scorpion enclosures in our animal room on campus as well.  All pretty much the same, though I assume the ones on the scorps on campus were from the crickets we fed.  Ok, maybe they weren't necessarily parasitizing the scorpion.  They were probably just hitching a ride.


We've found scorpions with parasitic mites attached.  Might even have some pictures.  I'll post them if I find them.  And - looking through a few pics last night I did find some parasitic mites that were very pale, including one on a _Triatoma_ that I'll post in a little while.



> I just made the taxonomy comment because someone made a comment about the only way to differentiate between them was under a microscope.  I took that as identification at the species level, which would probably not be able to be done even with a scope.


Understood.  And agreed.  Adding to the fun is the fact that probably half the mites out there have not been described.  It a gigantic group of small to tiny animals that are difficult to work with.



> As for a dichotomous key, if it can be done, it has, but i'm positive they'd be such subtle differences you wouldn't be able to use it anyway unless you were darn good.  I doubt morphology would cut it though.


Morphology would cut it to the family level, which I think is what the poster was asking for.  Would probably get to the genus level in many cases.  That would probably be sufficient to determine probablitity of it being a parasite.


----------



## skips (Apr 20, 2009)

Bill S said:


> Morphology would cut it to the family level, which I think is what the poster was asking for.  Would probably get to the genus level in many cases.  That would probably be sufficient to determine probablitity of it being a parasite.


True, I'm thinking family would do it for determining taxonomy for practicle purposes.  I'm still thinking though even with a key and a microscope, no one here could differentiate down to that level.  I have trouble using a key with small macroinvertebrates.  I won't even touch mites.


----------



## WelshTan (Apr 20, 2009)

i clicked on this thread so i wudnt have to make a new one and quite frankly i'm now confused by this long winded thread. . . earlier today i found 3 of my T tanks had lots of lil white tiny crawlies in them. . .all over the soil and eco-earth. . not many in the water, some on a dead crix. . . the 3 tanks have diff tevels of moisture in the substrate. . .chile rose which was almost bone dry eco-earth, the other 2 tanks slightly moist, one with potting soil substrate, other with eco-earth. I "cook" all substrate before placing it in the tanks. . .the tiny creatures bout size of grain of sand seem to be white or kind pale skin colour, they move but slowly, are also on the glass on sides of tanks. I found some in the kk that i have attempted to breed crix in, they had infested the dead crix in the soil. . ..sre these anything to be worried about? i dont know what these tiny creatures are.. .do u have any idea? they are in the dryer tank as well as some moister tanks. . .do i need to change n clean tanks or not worry? they are in quite noticable amounts, scattered everywhere, not in any set areas of the tanks. . .thanks


----------



## skips (Apr 20, 2009)

WelshTan said:


> i clicked on this thread so i wudnt have to make a new one and quite frankly i'm now confused by this long winded thread. . . earlier today i found 3 of my T tanks had lots of lil white tiny crawlies in them. . .all over the soil and eco-earth. . not many in the water, some on a dead crix. . . the 3 tanks have diff tevels of moisture in the substrate. . .chile rose which was almost bone dry eco-earth, the other 2 tanks slightly moist, one with potting soil substrate, other with eco-earth. I "cook" all substrate before placing it in the tanks. . .the tiny creatures bout size of grain of sand seem to be white or kind pale skin colour, they move but slowly, are also on the glass on sides of tanks. I found some in the kk that i have attempted to breed crix in, they had infested the dead crix in the soil. . ..sre these anything to be worried about? i dont know what these tiny creatures are.. .do u have any idea? they are in the dryer tank as well as some moister tanks. . .do i need to change n clean tanks or not worry? they are in quite noticable amounts, scattered everywhere, not in any set areas of the tanks. . .thanks



Bill may disagree, but without seeing them, those really do sound like mites.  They can come in on the crickets as has happened to me.  They may not kill the crickets or other animal unless it is already stressed, which crickets tend to be packed in high numbers.  Collembola are also common, but require very moist substrate, so it wouldnt make sense in your dry tanks.  Also, I don't think i've ever seen collembola climb glass unless it's very dirty, whereas I know mites do.  As for how to take care of them, change you substrate and sterilize your tank.  hopefully that gets rid of most of them to the point you don't have to worry.  Check your crickets too.  Other than that i'm still trying to figure out if this predatory mite thing is worth it.


----------



## WelshTan (Apr 20, 2009)

thanks Skips


----------



## Bill S (Apr 20, 2009)

WelshTan, if you can, see if you can catch some of these "white crawlies" in a plastic vial.  Maybe use tweezers to place some of the infested substrate or cricket remains in a vial.  Then take it to a college or university in your area and get someone in a biology, botany or agriculture department to look at them.  That's the only real way your going to get a good ID on them.  Over the Internet it's very difficult to diagnose "white crawlies" without good photographs.  If you can get a reliable diagnosis from someone who knows what they are looking at, please post it here.  The threads on this topic have been going in circles (the same circles) over and over again because everyone is guessing according to their own prejudices, and nobody is posting good pictures of what they are seeing.


----------



## WelshTan (Apr 20, 2009)

i really must try to get the cash together for a decent digital camera. . wish i had a microscope too . . . there is a college near me. . i might try and do that. . hope there is someone there who can identify me. . .so far the responses i've seen in this thread and my own thread i ended up having to start seem to be bout 80% towards mite probability  but i'm not going to throw my hands in the air n scream "mites!!!" until i am 100% certain with full confirmation . . .maybe the biologist or whoever can get digital close up photos for me that i can send in


----------



## skips (Apr 20, 2009)

WelshTan said:


> i really must try to get the cash together for a decent digital camera. . wish i had a microscope too . . . there is a college near me. . i might try and do that. . hope there is someone there who can identify me. . .so far the responses i've seen in this thread and my own thread i ended up having to start seem to be bout 80% towards mite probability  but i'm not going to throw my hands in the air n scream "mites!!!" until i am 100% certain with full confirmation . . .maybe the biologist or whoever can get digital close up photos for me that i can send in


You don't even have access to a decent magnifying glass?  You might be able to make out 8 legs or at least see if it's any of collembola's three body forms.  Definitely let us know whatever you find out.  My question is, why would collembola congregate densely on a dead cricket carcass?  and do they climb?  if not--->mites


----------



## Bill S (Apr 20, 2009)

skips said:


> My question is, why would collembola congregate densely on a dead cricket carcass?  and do they climb?  if not--->mites


It's not unusual for Collembola to congregate on food sources, and a decaying cricket would be a good food source.  Climbing glass is less typical, though.  But the real trick would be to see the creatures.  There are other possibilities besides mites and Collembola, and not enough information here to do anything beyond wild guesses.


----------



## Miss Bianca (Apr 20, 2009)

Bill S said:


> The pics have appeared before, and will probably appear again when relevant.  The thread is, finally, going in a few new directions, although the theme is old and oft repeated.  If the repetition bothers you - well, get used to it.  I'd bet there will be more threads along similar lines in the near future.  I will be very surprised if we don't see another _Collembola_ population reported as a mite infestation within the next couple weeks.





Who said it bothered me or even implied that? !
I was just making a comment...

what with it being the same topic and same pictures and all... 
no need for the sassiness..

---- and YES, there was another thread on pg1 just today titled mites...
and I really don't think what we discussed were in fact mites... 

but what do any of _us_ know right?


----------



## Bill S (Apr 20, 2009)

OK.  I've set up a few more mite pictures.  Here are some parasitic mites, with one possible exception.

First, a Centruroides with babies plus three _Leptus species_ mites. (Number three is on the tail.)






Another group of _Leptus species_ mites, this time on an Opiliones.






A gnaphosid spider with a _Drassyllus species_ mite.  (Felt sorry for the spider.)






A mite with an Erythraeoid larval mite attached.  (Not sure if this is really parasitism - the large mite is an Erythraeoid adult.)






A _Triatoma rubida_ with an unidentified mite.






And, just to show that being warm blooded isn't protection against mites - here's a newborn Pallid Bat with a Macronyssid mite.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Miss Bianca (Apr 20, 2009)

These are awesome Bill, thank you for sharing these.


----------



## skips (Apr 21, 2009)

Those are some awesome pictures.  I'd still like to see a few that like the ones ive had


----------



## c'est ma (Apr 27, 2009)

Oh, man, how'd I ever miss that last set of pictures?!!!  Thanks for posting those, Bill--they're spellbinding!

I don't suppose Jillian's book is going to have mite pics, is it?  If not, she'll need to do another one...!


----------



## Bill S (Apr 27, 2009)

c'est ma said:


> I don't suppose Jillian's book is going to have mite pics, is it?  If not, she'll need to do another one...!


Mites will be addressed - but probably only as an overview.  THere is an excellent book available on mites - and I was going to post the title and author here - but Jillian left the house about two minutes ago and took the book with her.  Maybe this evening I'll be able to post it.  (Warning - it's a very expensive, hard to find book.  Anyone interested will probably want to scout for it at their local university library.)

_Update:  (Amazon to the rescue) The book is Mites: Ecology, Evolution and Behaviour by David Evans Walter and Heather Coreen Proctor.  A used copy goes for more than $200, unfortunately._


----------



## jsloan (Nov 27, 2009)

Bill S said:


> A gnaphosid spider with a _Drassyllus species_ mite.


Nice pictures.   _Drassyllus_ is not a mite genus, though; it's a gnaphosid genus.  That is, if the rule still holds that once a genus name is given to one animal it cannot be used for another animal.


----------



## Bill S (Nov 28, 2009)

jsloan said:


> Nice pictures.   _Drassyllus_ is not a mite genus, though; it's a gnaphosid genus.  That is, if the rule still holds that once a genus name is given to one animal it cannot be used for another animal.


You're right about _Drassyllus_.  I'll have to check on the mite ID.  But names do sometimes get used more than once.  The example that comes to mind is _atrox_.  _Crotalus atrox_ is a rattlesnake, _Bothrops atrox_ is another pit viper, _Panthera atrox_ is an extinct large cat, _Thaumatomyrmex atrox_ is an ant, and I think there's a plant or two with that name as well.


----------



## equuskat (Nov 28, 2009)

Bill, those photos are phenomenal.  Thanks for posting them.


----------

