Feeding design in free-living mesostigmatid chelicerae (Acari: Anactinotrichida)

A model based upon mechanics is used in a re-analysis of historical acarine morphological work augmented by an extra seven zoophagous mesostigmatid species. This review shows that predatory mesostigmatids do have cheliceral designs with clear rational purposes. Almost invariably within an overall body size class, the switch in predatory style from a worm-like prey feeding (‘crushing/mashing’ kill) functional group to a micro-arthropod feeding (‘active prey cutting/slicing/slashing' kill) functional group is matched by: an increased cheliceral reach, a bigger chelal gape, a larger morphologically estimated chelal crunch force, and a drop in the adductive lever arm velocity ratio of the chela. Small size matters. Several uropodines (Eviphis ostrinus, the omnivore Trachytes aegrota, Urodiaspis tecta and, Uropoda orbicularis) have more elongate chelicerae (greater reach) than their chelal gape would suggest, even allowing for allometry across mesostigmatids. They may be: plesiosaur-like high-speed strikers of prey, scavenging carrion feeders (like long-necked vultures), probing/burrowing crevice feeders of cryptic nematodes, or small morsel/fragmentary food feeders. Some uropodoids have chelicerae and chelae which probably work like a construction-site mechanical excavator-digger with its small bucket. Possible hoeing/bulldozing, spore-cracking and tiny sabre-tooth cat-like striking actions are discussed for others. Subtle changes lead small mesostigmatids to be predator–scavengers (mesocarnivores) or to be predator–fungivores (hypocarnivores). Some uropodines (e.g., the worm-like prey feeder Alliphis siculus and, Uropoda orbicularis) show chelae similar in design to astigmatids and cryptostigmatids indicating possible facultative saprophagy. Scale matters—obligate predatory designs (hypercarnivory) start for mesostigmatids with chelal gape > 150 μm and cheliceral reach > 350 μm (i.e., about 500–650 μm in body size). Commonality of trophic design in these larger species with solifugids is indicated. Veigaia species with low chelal velocity ratio and other morphological strengthening specialisms, appear specially adapted in a concerted way for predating active soft and fast moving springtails (Collembola). Veigaia cerva shows a markedly bigger chelal gape than its cheliceral reach would proportionately infer suggesting it is a crocodile-like sit-and-wait or ambush predator par excellence. A small chelal gape, low cheliceral reach, moderate velocity ratio variant of the worm-like feeding habit design is supported for phytoseiid pollenophagy. Evidence for a resource partitioning model in the evolution of gnathosomal development is found. A comparison to crustacean claws and vertebrate mandibles is made. Alliphis siculus and Rhodacarus strenzkei are surprisingly powerful mega-cephalics for their small size. Parasitids show a canid-like trophic design. The chelicera of the nematophagous Alliphis halleri shows felid-like features. Glyphtholaspis confusa has hyaena-like cheliceral dentition. The latter species has a markedly smaller chelal gape than its cheliceral reach would suggest proportionately, which together with a high chelal velocity ratio and a high estimated chelal crunch force matches a power specialism of feeding on immobile tough fly eggs/pupae by crushing (durophagy). A consideration of gnathosomal orientation is made. Predatory specialisms appear to often match genera especially in larger mesostigmatids, which may scale quite differently. Comparison to holothyrids and opilioacarids indicates that the cheliceral chelae of the former are cutting-style and those of the latter are crushing-style. A simple validated easy-to-use ‘2:1 on’ predictive algorithm of feeding habit type is included based on a strength-speed tradeoff in chelal velocity ratio for ecologists to test in the field.