Published March 6, 2020 | Version v1
Taxonomic treatment Open

Amblyseius largoensis

  • 1. Guangdong Key Laboratory of Animal Conservation and Resource Utilization, Guangdong Public Laboratory of Wild Animal Conservation and Utilization, Guangdong Institute of Applied Biological Resources, Guangzhou, 510260, Guangdong, China.
  • 2. Plant Protection Research Institute, Duc Thang, Bac Tu Liem, Ha Noi, Viet Nam.

Description

Amblyseius largoensis (Muma)

(Figs. 2 a – e, 3 a – c)

Amblyseiopsis largoensis Muma 1955: 266; Garman 1958: 76.

Typhlodromus (Amblyseius) largoensis, Chant 1959: 96.

Amblyseius largoensis, Ehara 1959: 293; De Leon 1966: 90, 1967: 23; Muma & Denmark 1970: 69; Wu 1980: 41; Schicha 1981: 105; McMurtry & Moraes 1984: 29; Chen et al. 1984: 332; Moraes et al. 1986: 17, 2000: 239, 2004a: 143, 2004b: 33; Denmark & Muma 1989: 55; Wu & Lan 1989: 449; Wu et al. 1997: 39; Gondim Jr & Moraes 2001: 72; Chant & McMurtry 2004: 208, 2007: 78; Zannou et al. 2007: 16; Ferragut et al. 2011: 40; Oliveira et al. 2012: 4; Nguyen & Dao 2019.

Amblyseius (Amblyseialus) largoensis, Muma 1961: 287.

Amblyseius magnoliae, Denmark & Evans 2011: 69.

Typhlodromus largoensis, Hirschmann 1962.

Amblyseius (Amblyseius) largoensis, Ehara 1966; Ehara & Bhandhufalck 1977: 67; Denmark & Evans 2011: 69.

Amblyseius amtalaensis, Gupta 1977: 53; 1986: 51.

Amblyseius neolargoensis, Van der Merwe 1965:59; Chant et al. 1978: 1347.

Amblyseius sakalava, Blommers 1976: 96; Ueckermann & Loot 1988: 70.

Description — Female (n = 25)

Dorsum — Idiosomal setal pattern: 10A: 9B/JV-3: ZV. Dorsal shield (Fig. 2a) mostly smooth except anteriorly striated. Dorsal shield 355 (341–376) long and 224 (212–253) wide, distances between setae j1- J5 338 (326–364) and s4-s4 194 (181–213), shield nearly oval, slightly constricted at level of R1. Setae r3 and R1 on soft membranous cuticle laterad dorsal shield, r3 at level of between z4 and s4, R1 at level of shield incisions. All setae smooth. With six pairs of solenostomes (gd1, gd4, gd5, gd6, gd8, gd9) on dorsal shield. Length of setae: j1 36 (30–40), j3 51 (41–59), j4 6 (4–8), j5 5 (3–6), j6 7 (4–10), J2 9 (6–12), J5 9 (6–12), z2 11 (8–14), z4 9 (7–13), z5 6 (4–8), Z1 10 (6–14), Z4 98 (89–105), Z5 277 (243–296), s4 95 (86–103), S2 13 (9–16), S4 12 (9–16), S5 11 (8–15), r3 12 (10–16), R1 10 (7–14).

Venter — (Fig. 2b). Ventral setae smooth. Sternal shield with sparse striation, anterior margin convex, posterior margin straight, 80 (72–90) long, 77 (68–82) wide, with three pairs of setae st1 34 (29–39), st2 31 (27–34), st3 30 (26–33), and two pairs of lyrifissures (pst1-pst2), distance between st1-st3 63 (57–67) and st2-st2 68 (60–73). Metasternal platelets drop-shaped, each with one metasternal seta, st4 29 (26–34) and one lyrifissure (pst3). Genital shield smooth, with one pair of thin genital setae st5 27 (23–33), distance between st5-st5 74 (68–81); one pair of associated poroids on soft cuticle near posterior corners of shield. Ventrianal shield vase-shaped, 109 (99–117) long, 48 (45–53) wide at level of ZV2, 72 (64–84) wide at level of anus, with three pairs of thin pre-anal setae JV1 20 (15–23), JV2 17 (15–20), ZV2 15 (12–18); Pa 18 (15–21), Pst 18 (14–21) long. Pre-anal pores crescentic, posteromediad to JV2, distance between pores 26 (23–28). Opisthogastric soft cuticle with four pairs of setae, ZV1 17 (14–21), ZV3 10 (8–13), JV4 10 (6–13), JV5 64 (53–74) long. All ventral setae thin, except JV5, thicker. Two pairs of metapodal platelets, primary platelets 23(18–27) long, 4 (3–6) wide, secondary ones 13 (9–16) long, 2 (1–4) wide.

Peritremes — Peritremes extending anteriorly between j1.

Chelicerae — (Fig. 2c). Fixed digit 32 (29–35) long, with nine teeth and pilus dentilis, movable digit 29 (26–31) long, with three teeth.

Spermatheca — (Fig. 2d). Calyx of spermatheca tubular, 21 (18–24) long, 4 (2–5) wide at the opening; atrium 4 (2–5) long, 4 (3–5) wide, massive atrium as wide as cervix, connected with calyx; major duct broad, short, directly attached to atrium, and minor duct visible.

a from eight specimens, b from Wainstein & Begljarov, 1971 and Denmark & 1989, c Muma, from Wu al., 2009; d from Ehara & Yokogawa, 1977; e from Ryu & Lee, 1992.

et

Legs — Genua formula for leg I 0 – 1/2, 2/2– 2, leg II 0 – 1/2, 1/1 – 2, leg III 2 – 2/1, 1/1 – 0, leg IV 2 – 2/1, 0/1 – 1. Genua I-III each with one macroseta, Sge I 41 (37–45), Sge II 38 (32–41), Sge III 50 (42–55). Leg III with one macroseta on tibia, Sti III 41 (35–45). Leg IV (Fig. 2e) with three long-whipped macrosetae on genu, tibia and basitarsus, Sge IV 128 (111–138), Sti IV 101 (91–113) and St IV 65 (56–73).

Male — (n=7)

Dorsum — (Fig. 3a). Idiosomal setal pattern: 10A: 9B/JV-3: ZV. Dorsal shield mostly smooth except anteriorly striated, same as on female, 271 (264–291) long and 184 (173–201) wide at level of setae s4, shield nearly oval, nineteen pairs of dorsal setae, all smooth. Same adenotaxy and poroidotaxy as in females. Length of setae: j1 29 (24–31), j3 47 (42–50), j4 6 (4–7), j5 5 (4–6), j6 6 (5–8), J2 8 (7–9), J5 7 (5–8), z2 9 (7–11), z4 9 (7–10), z5 5 (4–7), Z1 9 (6–10), Z4 73 (65–81), Z5 215 (194–236), s4 79 (75–82), S2 11 (8–13), S4 10 (9–11), S5 10 (9–11), r3 11 (9–13), R1 8 (7–10).

Venter — (Fig. 3b). Ventral setae smooth. Sternogenital shield smooth, 131 (125–143) long, wider 81 (77–87) between coxae II–III than at posterior corners 41 (38–44). Five pairs of sterogenital setae (st1–st5), st1 27 (24–30), st2 23 (21–24), st3 22 (20–26), st4 21 (19–24), st5 22 (19–24), and three pairs of lyrifissures (pst1-pst3). Chaetotaxy of genua similar to female. Ventrianal shield subtriangular, 111 (106–116) long, 155 (147–161) wide at level anterior corners; transversally striated; striation on anterior part of the shield more obvious, with three pairs of thin pre-anal setae JV1 17 (14–20), JV2 15 (13–17), ZV2 13 (11–17); Pa 14 (11–17), Pst 17 (15–18) long. Preanal pores crescentic, posteromedian to JV2, distance between pores 19 (18–21). Opisthogastric soft cuticle with one pairs of setae, JV5 37 (33–40) long.

Peritremes — Peritremes extending to between j1. Peritrematal shield fused with dorsal shield.

Chelicerae and spermatodactyl — (Fig. 3c). Cheliceral dentition not discernible in the examined specimens. Fixed digit 22 (20–23) long, movable digit 20 (18–22) long. Spermatodactyl L-shaped; shaft 16 (15–18), foot 8 (7–10) long.

Legs — Chaetotaxy of genua similar to female. Macrosetae on genu I 31 (29–35), genu II 31 (30–33), genu III 37 (35–40), tibia III 35 (32–38), genu IV 81 (78–85), tibia IV 69 (65–72), tarsus IV 56 (52–59).

Specimens examined – 9 ♀♀, Chau Thanh district, Ben Tre Province (accession no. BT-0121, BT-0130, BT-0140, BT-0180, BT-0250, BT-0260, BT-0270, BT-0281, BT-0282), on Citrus reticulata × sinensis, 10 IV 2018, Fang X.D. coll.; 2 ♂♂ (accession no. BT-0122, BT-0160) same locality, host, date and collector; 16 ♀♀, Phong Dien district, Can Tho Province (accession no. CT-0301, CT-0302, CT-0321, CT-0322, CT-0341, CT-0342, CT-0350, CT-0360, CT-0371, CT-0372, CT-0401, CT-0402, CT-0430, CT-0441, CT-0450, CT-0481), and 2 ♂♂ (accession no. CT-0442, CT-0482), 12 IV 2018, same host and collector; 4 ♀♀, Cao Lanh district, Dong Thap Province (accession no. DT-0490, DT-0500, DT-0521, DT-0540) and 3 ♂♂ (accession no. DT-0522, DT-0532, DT-0550), 13 IV 2018, same host and collector.

Previous Records — Nearctic, Neotropical, Oriental, Australasian, Ethiopian, West Palaearctic and East Palaearctic, almost including all biogeographic realms except Antarctica (Hernandes et al. 2011).

Remarks — This species is very similar to A. herbicolus (Chant, 1959) and A. eharai Amitai and Swirski, 1981, but having differences in sternal shield with weak sclerotization and posterior margin straight, and calyx of spermatheca tubular. This species prefers high humidity environment, and it is the dominant species of brushes in Hainan islands in China. This species is important natural enemies of agriculture and forestry pest mites (Wu et al. 2009). In this survey, A. largoensis was found the dominant native species in surveyed citrus orchards in Vietnam.

Notes

Published as part of Fang, Xiao-Duan, Nguyen, Van-Liem, Ouyang, Ge-Cheng & Wu, Wei-Nan, 2020, Survey of phytoseiid mites (Acari: Mesostigmata, Phytoseiidae) in citrus orchards and a key for Amblyseiinae in Vietnam, pp. 254-267 in Acarologia 60 (2) on pages 257-261, DOI: 10.24349/acarologia/20204366, http://zenodo.org/record/4503348

Files

Files (9.7 kB)

Name Size Download all
md5:3c1eab8cd41e1de6713aa4d76d95a5c2
9.7 kB Download

System files (55.3 kB)

Name Size Download all
md5:ff48604da31d4478a8ed3886c0bbc938
55.3 kB Download

Linked records

Additional details

Biodiversity

Event date
2018-04-10 , 2018-04-12
Family
Phytoseiidae
Genus
Amblyseius
Kingdom
Animalia
Order
Mesostigmata
Phylum
Arthropoda
Scientific name authorship
Muma
Species
largoensis
Taxon rank
species
Verbatim event date
2018-04-10 , 2018-04-12
Taxonomic concept label
Amblyseius largoensis (Muma, 1955) sec. Fang, Nguyen, Ouyang & Wu, 2020

References

  • Muma M. H. 1955. Phytoseiidae (Acarina) associated with citrus in Florida. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am.,
  • Garman P. 1958. New species belonging to the genera Amblyseius and Amblyseiopsis with keys
  • Chant D. A. 1959. Phytoseiid mites (Acarina: Phytoseiidae). Part I. Bionomics of seven species in southeastern England. Part II. A taxonomic review of the family Phytoseiidae, with descriptions of thirty-eight new species. Canad. Entomol., 61 (12): 1 - 166.
  • Ehara S. 1959. Some predatory mites of the genera Typhlodromus and Amblyseius from Japan (Phytoseiidae). Acarologia, 1: 285 - 295.
  • De Leon D. 1966. Phytoseiidae of British Guyana with keys to species (Acarina: Mesostigmata). Studies on the Fauna of Suriname and other Guyanas, 8: 81 - 102.
  • De Leon D. 1967. Some mites of the Caribbean Area. Part I. Acarina on plants in Trinidad, West Indies. Lawrence: Allen Press Inc. 66 pp.
  • Muma M. H., Denmark H. A. 1970. Phytoseiidae of Florida. Arthropods of Florida and neighboring land areas, 6. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry, Gainesville, USA, 150 pp.
  • Wu W. N. 1980. Notes on the genus Amblyseius Berlese from China (Acarina: Phytoseiidae). Natural Enem. Insects, 2 (3): 39 - 50.
  • Schicha E. 1981. Two new species of Amblyseius Berlese from Queensland and New Caledonia compared with A. largoensis (Muma) from the South Pacific and A. deleoni Muma and Denmark from New South Wales (Acari: Phytoseiidae). J. Aust. Entomol. Soc., 20: 101 - 109. doi: 10.1111 / j. 1440 - 6055.1981. tb 01008. x
  • McMurtry J. A., Moraes G. J. de. 1984. Some phytoseiid mites from the South Pacific, with descriptions
  • Chen S., Zhu Z., Liang L. 1984. Phytoseiidae. In: Jiangxi University (Eds). Agricultural Mites of China. Shanghai: Shanghai Science & Technology Press: 306 - 363 [in Chinese].
  • Moraes G. J. de, McMurtry J. A., Denmark H. A. 1986. A catalog of the mite family Phytoseiidae. References to taxonomy, synonymy, distribution and habitat. EMBRAPA - DDT, Brasilia, Brazil, 353
  • Moraes G. J. de, Kreiter S., Lofego A. C. 2000. Plant mites (Acari) of the French Antilles. 3. Phytoseiidae (Gamasida). Acarologia, 40 (3): 237 - 264. doi: 10.1016 / j. jval. 2014.08.1890
  • Moraes G. J. de, McMurtry J. A., Denmark H. A., Campos C. B. 2004 a. A revised catalog of the mite family Phytoseiidae. Zootaxa, 434: 1 - 494. doi: 10.11646 / zootaxa. 434.1.1
  • Moraes G. J. de, Lopes P. C., Fernando C. P. 2004 b. Phytoseiid mite (Acari: Phytoseiidae) of coconut growing areas in Sri Lanka, with descriptions of three new species. J. Acarol. Soc. Jpn., 13 (2): 141 - 160. doi: 10.2300 / acari. 13.141
  • Denmark H. A., Muma M. H. 1989. A revision of the genus Amblyseius Berlese, 1914 (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Occasional Papers of the Florida State Collection of Arthropods, 4, pp. 149.
  • Wu W. N., Lan W. M. 1989. Notes on the largoensis group of the genus Amblyseius from China (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Acta Zootaxon. Sinica, 14 (4): 447 - 452 [in Chinese].
  • Wu W. N., Liang L. R., Lan W. M. 1997. Acari: Phytoseiidae. Economic Insect Fauna of China, 53. Beijing: Science Press. 227 pp. [in Chinese].
  • Gondim Jr. M. G. C., Moraes G. J. de 2001. Phytoseiid mites (Acari: Phytoseiidae) associated with palm trees (Arecaceae) in Brazil. Syst. Appl. Acarol., 6: 65 - 94. doi: 10.11158 / saa. 6.1.11
  • Chant D. A., McMurtry J. A. 2004. A review of the subfamily Amblyseiinae Muma (Acari: Phytoseiidae): Part III. The tribe Amblyseiini Wainstein, subtribe Amblyseiina n. subtribe. Int. J. Acarol., 30 (3): 171 - 228. doi: 10.1080 / 01647950408684388
  • Chant D. A., McMurtry J. A. 2007. Illustrated keys and diagnoses for the genera and subgenera of the Phytoseiidae of the world (Acari: Mesostigmata). Indira Publishing House, West Bloomfield, 219 pp.
  • Zannou I. D., Moraes G. J. de, Ueckermann E. A., Oliveira A. R., Yaninek J. S., Hanna R. 2007. Phytoseiid mites of the subtribe Amblyseiina (Acari: Phytoseiidae: Amblyseiini) from sub-Saharan Africa. Zootaxa, 1550: 1 - 47. doi: 10.11646 / zootaxa. 1550.1.1 doi: 10.11646 / zootaxa. 1550.1.1
  • Ferragut F., Moraes G. J. de, Navia D. 2011. Phytoseiid mites (Acari: Phytoseiidae) of the Dominican Republic, with a re-definition of the genus Typhloseiopsis De Leon. Zootaxa, 2997: 37 - 53. doi: 10.1186 / 1742 - 9994 - 8 - 19
  • Oliveira D. C., Charanasri V., Kongchuensin M., Konvipasruang P., Chandrapatya A., Moraes G. J. de 2012. Phytoseiidae of Thailand (Acari: Mesostigmata), with a key for their identification. Zootaxa, 3453: 1 - 24. doi: 10.1186 / 1742 - 9994 - 9 - 22
  • Muma M. H. 1961. Subfamiles, genera, and species of Phytoseiidae (Acarina: Mesostigmata). Bull. Fla. State Mus., 5 (7): 267 - 302.
  • Denmark H. A., Evans G. A. 2011. Phytoseiidae of North America and Hawaii (Acari: Mesostigmata). Indira Publishing House, West Bloomfield, USA, 451 pp.
  • Hirschmann W. 1962. Gangystematik der Parasitiformes. Acarologie Schriftenreihe fur Vergleichende Milbenkunde, Hirschmann-Verlag, Furth / Bay, 5 (5 - 6), pp. 80 + plates 32.
  • Ehara S. 1966. A tentative catalogue of predatory mites of Phytoseiidae known from Asia, with descriptions of five new species from Japan. Mushi, 39: 9 - 30.
  • Ehara S., Bhandhufalck A. 1977. Phytoseiid mites of Thailand (Acarina: Mesotigmata). J. Fac. Educ., Tottori University, Natural Science, 27 (2): 43 - 82.
  • Gupta S. K. 1977. Description of four species of Amblyseius Berlese (Acarina: hytoseiidae) from India. Entomol. Month. Mag., 112: 53 - 58.
  • Gupta S. K. 1986. Fauna of India (Acari: Mesostigmata) Family Phytoseiidae. Zoological Survey of India, Calcutta, India, 350 pp.
  • van der Merwe G. G. 1965. South African Phytoseiidae (Acarina) I. Nine new species of the genus Amblyseius Berlese. J. Entomol. Soc. South. Afr., 28 (1): 57 - 76.
  • Chant D. A., Hansell R. I. C., Rowell H. J., Yoshida-Shaul E. 1978. A study of the Family Phytoseiidae (Acarina: Mesostigmata) using the methods of numerical taxonomy. Canad. J. Zool., 56: 1330 - 1347. doi: 10.1139 / z 78 - 185
  • Blommers L. 1976. Some Phytoseiidae (Acarina: Mesostigmata) from Madagascar, with descriptions
  • Ehara S., Yokogawa M. 1977. Two new Amblyseius from Japan with notes on three other species (Acarina: Phytoseiidae). Proc. Jpn. Soc. Syst. Zool., 13: 50 - 58.
  • Ryu M. O., Lee W. K. 1992. Ten newly recorded phytoseiid mites (Acarina: Phytoseiidae) from Korea. Korean J. Entomol., 22 (1): 23 - 42. doi: 10.2476 / asjaa. 40.23
  • Hernandes F. A., Kreiter S., Tixier M. - S. 2011. Biogeographical analysis within the Family Phytoseiidae Berlese (Acari: Mesostigmata): an example from the large sub-genus Typhlodromus (Anthoseius) De Leon. Acarologia, 51 (4): 431 - 448. doi: 10.1051 / acarologia / 20112026
  • Amitai S., Swirski E. 1981. A new species of Amblyseius (Acarina: Phytoseiidae) from the Far East. Isr. J. Entomol., 15: 59 - 66.
  • Wu W. N., Ou J. F., Huang J. L. 2009. Fauna Sinica, Invertebrate Vol. 47, Arachnida, Acari, Phytoseiidae. Beijing: Science Press. 511 pp. [in Chinese].