
To work with mites (Fig. 3.1), one must first understand their morphology and classification. Other than the need for a good microscope, the major hurdle to mite identification is the scattered nature of the literature. This disarray includes both the variety of languages and locations of the relevant papers and the babel of jargon used to describe mite morphology. Fortunately, in recent years mite morpho-speak has become more homogeneous and several excellent texts exist that provide clear and comprehensive discussions of mite morphology. For those interested in learning to identify mites, we recommend the ‘bible’ of acarologists: A Manual of Acarology 3rd Edition (Krantz and Walter 2009). For those who speak English and who wish to become proficient in the identification of mites, The Acarology Laboratory at The Ohio State University runs a series of short courses during the Northern Hemisphere summer. The Acarology Summer Program has been in existence for over 50 years and both authors learned much of what they know about mite taxonomy there. For an overview of acarological resources see Google or Walter and Proctor (2010).
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 3 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
