international journal of acarology re-descriptions of ... · international journal of acarology...

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [Jafari, Shahriar]On: 5 May 2011Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 937206313]Publisher Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of AcarologyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t795426017

Re-descriptions of Amblyseius meghriensis Arutunjan and Typhlodromushaiastanius (Arutunjan) with discussion on using preanal pores as acharacter in the subgenus Anthoseius (Mesostigmata: Phytoseiidae)Shahriar Jafaria; Yaghoub Fathipoura; Farid Farajiba Department of Entomology, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran b MITOX Consultants,Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Online publication date: 03 May 2011

To cite this Article Jafari, Shahriar , Fathipour, Yaghoub and Faraji, Farid(2011) 'Re-descriptions of Amblyseiusmeghriensis Arutunjan and Typhlodromus haiastanius (Arutunjan) with discussion on using preanal pores as acharacter in the subgenus Anthoseius (Mesostigmata: Phytoseiidae)', International Journal of Acarology, 37: 3, 244 — 254To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/01647954.2010.514288URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01647954.2010.514288

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t795426017http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01647954.2010.514288http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

International Journal of AcarologyVol. 37, No. 3, June 2011, 244–254

RE-DESCRIPTIONS OF AMBLYSEIUS MEGHRIENSIS ARUTUNJAN ANDTYPHLODROMUS HAIASTANIUS (ARUTUNJAN) WITH DISCUSSION ON USING

PREANAL PORES AS A CHARACTER IN THE SUBGENUS ANTHOSEIUS(MESOSTIGMATA: PHYTOSEIIDAE)

Shahriar Jafari1, Yaghoub Fathipour1 and Farid Faraji2

1. Department of Entomology, Tarbiat Modares University, PO Box 14115-336, Tehran, Iran (e-mails:[email protected] and [email protected]).; 2. MITOX Consultants, PO Box 92260, 1090 AG

Amsterdam, The Netherlands (e-mail: [email protected]).

(Received 16 January 2010; accepted 4 August 2010)

ABSTRACT – Amblyseius meghriensis Arutunjan (1968), collected in Lorestan Province, is a newspecies record for the Iranian phytoseiid fauna. The female is re-described and the male is describedfor the first time. The morphological characters of the female specimens collected from Iran comparedwith those given in the original description from Armenia. Illustrations and measurements are alsogiven for the Typhlodromus (Anthoseius) haiastanius (Arutunjan), another new species record for Iran.We have found that the presence of preanal pores can be variable in T. (A.) khosrovensis Arutunjan. Thesignificance of this morphological character in the taxonomy of the subgenus Anthoseius is discussed.A key to the species of Amblyseius recorded from Iran is also given.Key words – Re-description, Phytoseiidae, preanal pores, Amblyseius, subgenus Anthoseius, Iran.

INTRODUCTION

Phytoseiid mites are well known natural enemiesof phytophagous arthropods on cultivated and non-cultivated plants. This is one of the main reasonsthat numerous studies have been conducted on theecology and taxonomy of this group. More than 70species Phytoseiid mites have been reported from Iran(McMurtry, 1977; Sepasgosarian, 1977; Daneshvar,1978, 1980, 1987; Daneshvar and Denmark, 1982;Hajizadeh et al., 2002; Kolodochka et al., 2003;Faraji et al., 2007; Shirdel et al., 2008; Shirdel et al.,2009; Ueckermann et al., 2009) and among themonly 6 species from Lorestan Province were known:Neoseiulus zwoelferi (Dosse), N. bicaudus (Wainstein),N. sugonjaevi (Wainstein and Abbasova), N. imbri-catus (Corpuz-Raros and Rimando) and N. astutus(Beglyarov) recorded by Sadat-Shojaei (2007) andTyphlodromus (Anthoseius) bagdasarjani Wainsteinand Arutunjan by Daneshvar (1993). During a survey

to determine and evaluate phytoseiid mites native toLorestan Province of Iran, in 2008–2009, Amblyseiusmeghriensis Arutunjan (1968) was collected on cucum-ber leaves. This species was only known in Armeniaand described by Arutunjan (1968) as a new speciesbased on females. In this paper, we describe themale and re-describe the female of A. meghrien-sis based on the Iranian specimens. We also pro-vide the morphological characters and morphometricdata of the specimens found in Iran, those given inthe original description from Armenia by Arutunjan(1968), those of A. swirskii Athias-Henriot (1962) andA. rykei Pritchard and Baker (1962) (a junior syn-onym of A. swirskii, synonymy according to Zannouet al., 2007) in a table for comparison. Typhlodromus(Anthoseius) haiastanius (Arutunjan, 1977), a newspecies record for Iran, is also re-described to give abetter illustration and to show the variability of thenumber of preanal setae. Presence or absence of pre-anal pores is variable in another collected species of the

ISSN 0164-7954 print/ISSN 1945-3892 online© 2011 Taylor & Francis; printed 28 April 2011DOI: 10.1080/01647954.2010.514288http://www.informaworld.com

Downloaded By: [Jafari, Shahriar] At: 12:28 5 May 2011

Vol. 37, No. 3 Internat. J. Acarol. 245

subgenus Anthoseius, T . (A.) khosrovensis Arutunjan(1971), of which the figures of the ventrianal shieldsare also given.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The specimens were collected from plant leavesby direct examination under a dissecting microscope.The mites were cleared in Nesbitt’s solution andwere mounted in Hoyer’s medium on microscopeslides. The notations used for dorsal and ventral seta-tions follow Rowell et al. (1978) and Chant andYoshida-Shaul (1991) respectively. All measurementsare given in micrometers (µm). The classification sys-tems follow those of Chant and McMurtry (1994,2004) for Typhlodrominae and Amblyseini, respec-tively. Unfortunately, one of us (F. Faraji) was notsuccessful to loan any type material of the speciesdescribed by Arutunjan deposited in Academy ofSciences of Armenia in many occasions. Therefore, thecomparisons made in this paper are only based onthe descriptions and not examining the type material.The voucher material of species were preserved as slidemounted specimens and deposited in the collection ofthe Faculty Agriculture, Tarbiat Modares University,Tehran, Iran.

SYSTEMATICS

Family PHYTOSEIIDAE Berlese, 1916Genus Amblyseius Berlese, 1914

Amblyseius meghriensis Arutunjan, 1968(Figs. 1–3/Figs. 7–12)

FEMALE (n = 7) (Figs. 1–3/Figs. 7–8) – (mea-surements: mean followed by their respective ranges).

Dorsum (Fig. 1) – Dorsal setal pattern: 10A:9B.Dorsal shield oval and smooth with a few striae antero-lateraly, length of dorsal shield 368 (362–372), width atlevel of Z1 216 (212–220), with 19 pairs of dorsal setae(including r3 and R1) and 14 pairs of pores (7 pairssolenostomes gd1, gd2 gd4, gd5, gd6, gd8 and gd9, therest poroides); j3, s4, Z4 and Z5 are long and j4, j5,J2, J5 and z5 short; setae Z4 and Z5 slightly serrated.Length of dorsal and sublateral setae are as follows: j130 (28–31), j3 53 (52–54), j4 11 (10–12), j5 10 (9–11), j614 (13–15), J2 11 (10–12), J5 12 (11–13), z2 21 (19–22),z4 23 (22–25), z5 9 (8–10), Z1 15 (14–16), Z4 70 (68–71), Z5 151 (147–152), s4 78 (77–80), S2 19 (18–20), S415 (14–16), S5 13 (12–14); setae r3 25 (23–27) and R121 (20–22) on lateral integument.

Peritreme – Extending forward to the level of j1.Venter (Fig. 2) – Ventral setal pattern: JV-3:ZV.

Sternal shield smooth, 85 (82–88) long and 80 (78–81) wide at level of seta ST2; with two pairs of poresand 3 pairs of setae, ST1 37 (36–39), ST2 33 (32–34)and ST3 28 (27–30); ST1-ST1 58 (56–60), ST2-ST2 70(68–71) and ST1-ST3 68 (66–69); metasternal shield 15(14–16) long and 6 (5–7) wide, with a pore and a setaST4 34 (33–35); genital shield smooth, width (at levelof seta ST5) 74 (72–76); ST5 24 (23–25) long and ST5-ST5 68 (67–70); ventrianal shield pentagonal, striatedwith 3 pairs of preanal setae JV1 24 (23–25), JV2 20(19–22) and ZV2 21 (20–22) in addition to paranal andpostanal setae; ventrianal shield with 1 pair of ellip-tical pores posteromesad to JV2; ventrianal shield 128(127–130) long and 92 (90–94) wide at the level of setaeZV2; ZV1 22 (20–23), ZV3 14 (13–15), JV4 18 (17–19)and JV5 66 (65–68); two pairs of metapodal shields onsoft opisthogastric cuticle.

Spermatheca (Fig. 3) – Spermatheca with calyxcup or V-shaped 10 (9–11) long and atrium nodular.

Chelicera (Fig. 7) – Fixed digit of chelicerae42 (40–43) long, with 7–8 teeth and pilus dentilis.Movable digit 37 (36–38) long, with 2 teeth.

Legs (Fig. 8) – Genua and tibiae I-II-III-IV with10-7-7-7 and 10-7-7-6 setae, respectively; Sge I 30 (28–31), Sge II 32 (31–33), Sge III 39 (38–40), Sti III 33(32–34), Sge IV 69 (67–70), Sti IV 57 (56–59) and StIV 75(74–76) long.

MALE (n = 2) (Figs. 9–12) – (measurements:mean followed by their respective ranges).

Dorsum (Fig. 9) – Dorsal shield pattern as infemale, oval and smooth with a few anterolateral striae,279 (278–281) long, 160 (157–161) wide at level of Z1,with 19 pairs of dorsal setae and 14 pairs of pores asin female, only setae Z4 and Z5 slightly serrated, theother setae smooth; setae j3, s4, Z4 and Z5 longer thanthe other setae. j4, j5, J5 and z5 short. The length ofdorsal setae as follows: j1 27 (26–28), j3 41(40–42), j410 (9–11), j5 10 (9–11), j6 15 (14–16), J2 13 (12–14), J59 (8–10), z2 15 (14–16), z4 24 (23–25), z5 9 (8–10), Z1 15(14–16), Z4 51 (49–52), Z5 84 (82–86), s4 57 (56–59), S220 (19–21), S4 16 (15–17), S5 14 (13–15), r3 21 (20–22)and R1 19 (18–20).

Peritreme – Extending to the level of between j1and j3.

Venter (Fig. 10) – Sterno-genital shield smooth121 (119–124) long and 69 (67–70) wide at level ofseta ST2, with 5 pairs of setae ST1 27 (26–28), ST2 24(23–25), ST3 24 (22–25), ST4 21 (20–23) and ST5 22(20–23) and two pair of pores. Distance between ST1-ST1 48 (46–50), ST1-ST5 108 (106–110); ventrianalshield subtriangular, striated, 109 (107–112) long and117 (116–117) wide at level of seta ZV2 and 149 (149–150) at the widest point, with a pair of elliptical pores


246 Jafari et al. 2011

Figs. 1–8. Amblyseius meghriensis Arutunjan, female – 1. dorsal view of idiosoma; 2. ventral view of idiosoma;3. Spermathecae; 7. Chelicera; 8. Genu, tibia and basitarsus leg IV. Spermatheca, A. andersoni (Chant): Fig. 4.Collected from South-west France, Fig. 5. Collected from The Netherlands, Fig. 6. A. swirskii Athias-Henriot.



Figs. 9–12. Amblyseius meghriensis Arutunjan, male – 9. dorsal view of idiosoma; 10. ventral view of idiosoma;11. Genu, tibia and basitarsus leg IV; 12. Chelicera.



posteromesad to JV2 and three pairs of small pores;ventrianal shield with three pairs of preanal setae JV117 (17–18), JV2 20 (19–21) and ZV2 18 (17–19); setaJV5 35 (33–36) on soft cuticle.

Legs (Fig. 11) – Measurements of legs (frombase of leg to end of pretarsus) as follows: leg I 325(322–329), leg II 280 (276–283), leg III 286 (284–288)and leg IV 365 (360–369) long respectively. Sge I 22(21–23), Sge II 24 (23–25), Sge III 30 (29–32), Sti III 24(23–25), Sge IV 51 (49–52), Sti IV 45 (44–46), and St IV57 (56–58); genua and tibiae I-II-III-IV with 10-7-7-7and 10-7-7-6 setae, respectively.

Chelicera (Fig. 12) – Fixed digit 32 (31–33) long,with 6 teeth and pilus dentilis; movable digit 24 (23–25)long, with 1 tooth; spermatodactyl as shown in Fig. 12.

Material examined – Seven females and 2 malescollected from cucumber leaves, Cucumis sativus, Iran:Lorestan Province, Norabad, October 2008 and 2009,coll. S. Jafari.

Remarks – The female specimens of A. megh-riensis collected in Iran resemble the holotype femalein many respects. However, the Iranian specimenshave longer z2 and z4 setae (21 and 23 vs. 15). Weconsider this as an intraspecific morphological vari-ation. Based on the morphological characters andmeasurements, Chant and Yoshida-Shaul (1990) ques-tioned the identity of A. meghriensis, which fit thoseof A. andersoni (Chant, 1957) very closely. However,the shape and size of calyx and atrium of spermath-ecae are clearly distinctive in these two species thatare shown in Figure 3 for A. meghriensis and Figs. 4and 5 for A. andersoni (Fig. 4, material collectedby F. Bakker, 02/04/2007, apple orchard, Monheurt,Lot-et-Garonne, South-west France; Fig. 5, materialcollected by F. Faraji, 06/07/1998, apple orchard,Amsterdam, The Netherlands). Therefore, based onthis unique character, we consider A. meghriensisa valid species distinguishable from A. andersoni.Amblyseius swirskii, which is an exotic species, hasbeen used recently in some greenhouses in Iran (per-sonal communication of Dr. Khanjani with F. Faraji).To distinguish between these two species, morpholog-ical measurements of A. meghriensis, A. swirskii andA. rykei (a junior synonym of A. swirskii) are pro-vided in Table 1. These two species can be separatedby the length of seta Z5: this seta is 102–116 longin A. swirskii while is 147–152 µm in A. meghriensis.Also, the atrium of spermatheca is larger in A. swirskii(Fig. 6, material collected by M. Nomikou, Sep. 1997,cotton plants, Revadim, Israel). Molecular work onthese three species would reveal if A. meghriensis isconspecific with any of these two species, a possibilitythat we don’t have at this moment.

Key to the Iranian species of Amblyseius: adult female

1. The length of seta z4 about or longer than 2/3distance between insertions of seta z4 and s4 . . . .2

– The length of seta z4 shorter than half distancebetween insertions of seta z4 and s4 . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2. Calyx of spermatheca elongate, slightly swollenbasally; fixed digit of chelicera with about 15small teeth . . . . . . . . . . .A. azerbaijanicus Abbasava

– Calyx of spermatheca shorter and V-shaped, fixeddigit of chelicera with 7–8 teeth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. meghriensis Arutunjan

3. Ventrianal shield vase-shaped . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4– Ventrianal shield not vase-shaped. . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

4. Calyx fundibular, flared distally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. herbicolus (Chant)

– Calyx tubular, not flared distally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. largoensis (Muma)

5. Seta Z5 longer than width of dorsal shield, sper-matheca with calyx having annulated stalk, flareddistally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. obtusus Koch

– Seta Z5 shorter than width of dorsal shield, sper-matheca without calyx annulated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

6. Calyx of spermatheca tubular . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. mcmurtryi Muma

– Calyx of spermatheca cup or V-shaped . . . . . . . . . 7

7. Dorsal shield completely reticulated . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. rademacheri Dosse

– Dorsal shield mainly smooth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

8. Seta Z5 shorter than 140 µm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. swirskii Athis-Henriot∗

– Seta Z5 longer than 150 µm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

9. Movable digit of chelicerae smooth or with 1tooth; seta Z5 long (175–250) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. meridionalis Berlese

– Movable digit of chelicerae with 2 teeth; seta Z5shorter (157–174). . . . .A. ampullosus Wu and Lan

∗This species is considered exotic and was recently usedas a biological control agent in some greenhouses inIran (personal communication of Dr. M. Khanjani withF. Faraji).

Genus Typhlodromus Scheuten, 1857Subgenus Anthoseius De Leon, 1959

Typhlodromus (Anthoseius) haiastanius (Arutunjan,1977)



Table 1. Comparison of some morphological characters of Amblyseius meghriensis collected in Iran with thosegiven in the original description and A. swirskii a closely related species (measurement in micrometers).

CharacterAmblyseius meghriensis A. swirskii

Iran Holotype∗ Original description A. rykei∗∗∗∗ Re-description∗∗∗∗∗

Female Male Female Female∗∗ Male∗∗∗ Female Female Male

Dorsal shieldlength

368 279 348 319 – 338 255 – 295 345 326 – 352 285

Dorsal shieldwidth

216 160 204 – – 210 202 – 208 190

j1 30 27 27.5 25 – 32 23 31 24 – 32 25j3 53 41 50 46 – 57 46 50 48 – 56 43j4 11 10 10 – 5 – 8 7 8 7j5 10 10 7.5 – 5 – 8 6 8 7j6 14 15 12.5 – 5 – 8 9 8 – 10 8J2 11 13 12.5 7 – 9 5 – 8 9 8 – 10 7J5 12 9 10 – 6.5 8 6 – 8 8z2 21 15 15 – 13 14 11 – 16 13z4 23 24 15 – 15 13 10 – 16 13z5 9 9 7.5 – 6 – 8 8 6 – 8 6Z1 15 15 12.5 – 13 9 8 – 10 8Z4 70 51 77.5 67 – 76 55 69 69 – 78 52Z5 158 84 150 102 – 116 77 110 106 – 115 80s4 78 57 75 70 – 81 62 72 70 – 82 59S2 19 20 15 17 – 25 12 14 11 – 14 14S4 15 16 10 – 11 9 8 – 10 9S5 13 14 7.5 – 11 8 6 – 8 9r3 25 21 – – 21 – 23 20 19 – 21 20R1 21 19 – – 16 – 18 13 10 – 13 14Ventrianal shield

length128 109 – – 112 – 125 118 110 – 120 113

Ventrianal shieldwidth

92 117 – – – 78 72 – 86 145

JV5 66 35 – – 31 – 41 – – –Sge I 30 21 – – – 24 24 –Sge II 32 24 – 23 – 31 – 24 27 – 29 25Sge III 38 30 – 26 – 37 – 31 32 24Sti III 32 32 – 29 – 36 – 22 21 – 24 20Sge IV 69 44 65 61 – 66 39 – 52 60 56 – 66 39Sti IV 57 36 55 42 – 47 31 – 44 41 40 – 51 35St IV 75 48 75 53 – 68 49 – 62 56 53 – 64 50Teeth of fixed

digit7–8 6 8 8 6 – 7 – 9 – 10

Z5/Z4 2.25 1.57 1.94 1.5 1.4 1.59 1.51 1.53

∗From original description (Arutunjan 1968); ∗∗From Athias-Henriot (1962); ∗∗∗From Porath and Swirski (1965); ∗∗∗∗A juniorsynonym of Amblyseius swirskii (data taken from Zannou et al., 2007); ∗∗∗∗∗From Zannou et al., 2007.



Anthoseius (Amblydromellus) invectus haiastaniusArutunjan, 1977

FEMALE (n = 6) (Figs. 13–18) – (measure-ments: mean followed by their respective ranges).

Dorsum (Fig. 13) – Dorsal setal pattern: 12A:8A; length of dorsal shield 368 (366–370), width atlevel of J2 188 (186–190), oval and reticulated, with 20pairs of dorsal setae (including r3 and R1) and 17 pairsof pores, three pairs of them large solenostomes (gd2,gd6, gd9) and the rest poroides; dorsal setae smoothexcept Z4 and Z5 serrated; length of dorsal and sublat-eral setae are as follows: j1 26 (25–27), j3 32 (31–33), j417(16–18), j5 21 (20–22), j6 23 (22–23), J2 28 (27–29),J5 5(5–6), z2 25 (23–28), z3 29 (27–31), z4 29 (28–29), z520 (19–21), Z4 46 (44–48), Z5 58 (56–59), s4 32 (31–33),s6 39 (37–40), S2 40 (39–41), S4 36 (35–37), S5 35 (32–36); setae r3 31 (30–32) and R1 32 (31–33) on lateralintegument.

Peritreme – Extending to the level of between z4and s4.

Venter (Fig. 14) – Ventral setal pattern: JV-3:ZV;sternal shield smooth, 80 (79–81) long and 79 (78–79)wide at level of seta ST2, with 2 pairs of pores and2 pairs of setae, ST1 32 (31–34) and ST2 33 (32–34),ST3 33 (32–34) and ST4 30 (30–31), ST3 and ST4 onseparate shields, ST4 associated with a pore; distancebetween ST1-ST1 52 (51–53), ST2-ST2 57 (55–58) andST1-ST2 36 (35–36). Genital shield smooth, length ofgenital shield 104 (103–105); width (at level of setaST5) 64 (63–65), ST5 30 (29–31) long and distancebetween ST5-ST5 62 (61–62); ventrianal shield striatedand lightly creased, 116 (112–120) long and 67 (64–72)wide at the level of setae ZV2 with 3 pairs of preanalsetae, in one specimen ventrianal shield with 2 pairs ofpreanal setae (Fig. 15), round preanal pores posteriorto and longitudinally aligned with JV2; JV1 25 (24–25), JV2 24 (23–24) and ZV2 25 (23–25) in addition toparanal and postanal setae on ventrianal shield; ZV125 (24–26), ZV3 12 (12–14), JV4 25 (24–26) and JV5 60(60–61).

Spermatheca (Fig. 17) – Calyx cup-shaped andatrium c-shaped 20 (19–22) long and 12 (10–14)wide.

Legs (Fig. 16) – Genua and tibiae I-II-III-IVwith 10-7-7-7 and 10-7-7-6 setae, respectively; macro-seta of basitarsus IV 52 (51–52) long and slightlyknobbed apically.

Chelicera (Fig. 18) – Fixed digit of chelicerae 28(27–29) long, with 3 teeth and pilus dentilis; movabledigit 28 (28–29) long, with 1 tooth.

Material examined – Twenty-two females col-lected from Prunus domestica, Iran: Lorestan Province,Azna, August 2009, coll. S. Jafari.

Remarks – The species collected in LorestanProvince shows all the morphological characters fit-ting the description of T. (A.) haiastanius (Arutunjan,1977). Arutunjan (1977) described it as a subspeciesof Typhlodromus (Anthoseius) invectus Chant, 1959.Denmark and Welbourn (2002) elevated this sub-species to the species level, which was confirmed byChant and McMurtry (2007). Both T. (A.) invectus andT. (A.) haiastanius were recorded from neighboringcountries of Armenia and Azerbaijan. The main dif-ference between these two species is that the macrosetaon basitarsus IV is longer (about 50 µm) in haiasta-nius while invectus has a shorter macroseta (about 35).Daneshvar and Denmark (1982) described a speciesfrom Iran, which closely resembles T. (A.) haiasta-nius, namely, Typhlodromus (Anthoseius) rodriguezi.We were not able to reexamine the type material ofthese two species to confirm the validity of T. (A.)rodriguezi. At this point, based on the original descrip-tions, T. rodriguezi can be distinguished from T. (A.)haiastanius by having a small neck between atrium andcalyx of spermatheca and not having preanal pores.

A few of the collected specimens also show a vari-ation in the number of preanal setae by having only 2pairs of setae (ZV2 off the ventrianal shield, Fig. 15).

Typhlodromus (Anthoseius) khosrovensis Arutunjan,1971

Material examined – Nineteen females and 6males collected from Prunus domestica, Iran: LorestanProvince, Norabad, July 2009, coll. S. Jafari.

Remarks – The presence of 4 pairs of large sol-enostomes (gd2, gd6, gd8, gd9) on the dorsal shieldclearly distinguishes T . (A.) khosrovensis from theother species of the subgenus Anthoseius in Iran.The other closely related species having 4 pairs oflarge solenostomes is T. (A.) psyllakisi Swirski andRagusa (1976) known from Greece. The main dif-ference between these two species is the length ofperitreme, which is much shorter in T. khosrovensis.

An examination of 10 female specimens of T.(A.) khosrovensis showed a remarkable variation in thenumber of preanal pores: six specimens without anypores (Fig. 19A), 2 with only one pore (Fig. 19B) and 2with a pair of pores (Fig. 19C). The preanal pores werenot depicted in the original description (Arutunjan,1971) and mentioned as absent in the re-descriptionby Ueckermann et al. (2009). Some authors like Karg(1993) consider this character important to distinguishbetween species of the subgenus Anthoseius. However,our observations clearly show that it can vary and thusis not a reliable character. Unreliability of this charac-ter is also supported by the absence of preanal pores



Figs. 13–18. Typhlodromus (Anthoseius) haiastanius (Arutunjan), female – 13. dorsal view of idiosoma; 14.ventral view of idiosoma; 15. two forms of ventrianal shields; 16. Genu, tibia and basitarsus leg IV; 17. Spermathecae;18. Chelicera.



Fig. 19. Typhlodromus (Anthoseius) khosrovensis Arutunjan, three types of ventrianal shield – A. absence ofpreanal pores; B. with one preanal pore; C. with a pair of preanal pores.

in the original description of T. (A.) recki Wainstein(1958) and re-description by Livshitz and Kuznetsov(1972), but reported as present by Swirski et al., (1998)and Papadoulis et al., (2009).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We wish to thank Profs. James A. McMurtry andEdward A. Ueckermann for their valuable commentson this manuscript.

REFERENCES

Arutunjan, E. S. 1968. New species of predatory mitesof Genus Amblyseius Berlese, 1904 from Armenia(Parasitiform, Phytoseiidae). Dokl. Akad. NaukArmyanskoi SSR 46: 92–96.

Arutunjan, E. S. 1971. New species of the genusTyphlodromus Scheuten, 1857 (Parasitiformes,Phytoseiidae). Dokl. Akad. Nauk ArmyanskoiSSR 52: 305–308.

Arutunjan, E. S. 1977. Identification Manual ofPhytoseiid Mites of Agricultural Crops of theArmenian SSR. Akad. Nauk Armyanskoi SSR,Zool. Instit., Erevan, Armenia. 177 pp.

Athias-Henriot, C. 1962. Amblyseius swirskii, un nou-veau phytoseiide voisin d′ A. andersoni (Acariensanactinotriches). Ecole Nationale d′Agricultured′Alger 3: 1–7.

Berlese, A. 1914. Acari nuovi. Manipulus IX. Redia10: 113–150.

Berlese, A. 1916. Centuria prima di Acari nuovi. Redia12: 19–66.

Chant, D. A. 1957. Descriptions of some phyto-seiid mites (Acarina, Phytoseiidae). Part I. Ninenew species from British Columbia with keysto the species of British Columbia. Part II.Redescriptions of eight species described byBerlese. Can. Entomol. 89: 289–308.

Chant, D. A. 1959. Phytoseiid mites (Acarina:Phytoseiidae). Part I. Bionomics of seven speciesin southeastern England. Part II. A taxonomicreview of the family Phytoseiidae, with descrip-tions of thirty-eight new species. Can. Entomol.Suppl. 12: 166 pp.

Chant, D. A. and J. A. McMurtry. 1994. Areview of the subfamilies Phytoseiinae andTyphlodrominae (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Internat.J. Acarol. 20: 223–310.

Chant, D. A. and J. A. McMurtry. 2004. A reviewof the subfamilies Amblyseiinae Muma (Acari:Phytoseiidae): part III. The tribe AmblyseiiniWainstein, subtribe Amblyseiina n. subtribe.Internat. J. Acarol. 30: 171–228.

Chant, D. A. and J. A. McMurtry. 2007. IllustratedKeys and Diagnoses for the Genera andSubgenera of the Phytoseiidae of the World(Acari: Mesostigmata). Indira Publishing House,West Bloomfield, MI, USA. 220 pp.



Chant, D. A. and E. Yoshida-Shaul. 1990. Theidentities of Amblyseius andersoni (Chant)and A. potentillae (Garman) in the familyPhytoseiidae (Acari: Gamasina). Internat. J.Acarol. 16: 5–12.

Chant, D. A. and E. Yoshida-Shaul. 1991. Adultventral setal patterns in the family Phytoseiidae(Acari: Gamasinae). Internat. J. Acarol. 17: 187–199.

Daneshvar, H. 1978. A study on the fauna ofplant mites in Azarbayjan. Appl. Entomol.Phytopathol. 46(1–2): 18–20 (in English), 117–128 (in Persian).

Daneshvar, H. 1980. Some predator mites fromnorthern and western Iran. Appl. Entomol.Phytopathol. 48: 15–17 (in English), 87–96 (inPersian).

Daneshvar, H. 1987. Some predatory mites fromIran, with description of one new genus andsix new species (Acari: Phytoseiidae, Ascidae).Appl. Entomol. Phytopathol. 54(1–2): 13–37 (inEnglish), 55–73 (in Persian).

Daneshvar, H. 1993. Distribution range and habi-tats of two predatory mites Amblydromella ket-tanehi and Euseius libanesi, in Iran. 254 pp. In:Proceeding of the 11th plant protection congressof Iran, Guilan University, Rasht.

Daneshvar, H. and H. A. Denmark. 1982. Phytoseiidsof Iran (Acarina: Phytoseiidae). Internat. J.Acarol. 8(1): 3–14.

Denmark, H. A. and W. C. Welbourn. 2002.Revision of the genera Amblydromella Mumaand Anthoseius De Leon (Acari: Phytoseiidae).Internat. J. Acarol. 28: 291–316.

De Leon, D. 1959. Two new genera of phytoseiidmites with a note on Proprioseius meridionalisChant (Acarina: Phytoseiidae). Entomol. News(Philadelphia) 70: 257–262.

Faraji, F., J. Hajizadeh, E. A. Ueckermann, K. Kamaliand J. A. McMurtry. 2007. Two new recordsfor Iranian phytoseiid mites with synonymyand keys to the species of Typhloseiulus Chantand McMurtry and Phytoseiidae in Iran (Acari:Mesostigmata). Internat. J. Acarol. 33: 231–239.

Hajizadeh, J., R. Hosseini and J. A. McMurtry. 2002.Phytoseiid mites (Acari: Phytoseiidae) associ-ated with eriophyid mites (Acari: Eriophyidae) inGuilan province of Iran. Internat. J. Acarol. 28:373–378.

Karg, W. 1993. Acari (Acarina), Milben Parasitiformes(Anactinochaeta) Cohors Gamasina Leach.Raubmilbe. Die Tierwelt Deutschlands: 59, 2nded. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Jena, Germany. 523pp.

Kolodochka, L. A., H. Hajiqanbar and J. A.McMurtry. 2003. A description of unknown maleand description of female of the rare phyto-seiid mite Neoseiulus sugonjaevi (Wainstein etAbbasova, 1974) (Parasitiformes, Phytoseiidae)from Iran. Acarina 11(2): 231–233.

Livshitz, I. Z. and N. N. Kuznetsov. 1972.Phytoseiid mites from Crimea (Parasitiformes:Phytoseiidae). In: Pests and diseases of fruitand ornamental plants. Proceedings of TheAll-Union V. I. Lenin Academy of AgriculturalScience, The State Nikita Botanical Gardens,Yalta, Ukraine. 61: 13–64.

McMurtry, J. A. 1977. Description and biology ofTyphlodromus persianus n. sp., from Iran withnotes on T. kettanehi (Acarina: Mesostigmata:Phytoseiidae). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Amer. 70:563–568.

Papadoulis, G. Th., N. G. Emmanouel and E.V. Kapaxidi. 2009. Phytoseiidae of Greeceand Cyprus (Acari: Mesostigmata). IndiraPublishing House, West Bloomfield, MI, USA.200 pp.

Porath, A. and E. Swirski. 1965. A survey of Phytoseiidmites (Acarina: Phytoseiidae) on citrus, with adescription of new species. Israel J. Agric. Res. 15:2–9.

Pritchard, A. E. and E. W. Baker. 1962. Mites of thefamily Phytoseiidae from Central Africa, withremarks on genera of the world. Hilgardia 33:205–309.

Rowel, H. J., D. A. Chant and R. I. C. Hansell.1978. The determination of setal homologiesand setal patterns on the dorsal shied in thefamily Phytoseiidae (Acari: Mesostigmata). Can.Entomol. 110: 859–876.

Sadat-Shojaei, M. 2007. The identification of ectopar-asite mites of dipteran insects in Khoramabadtown [MSc thesis]. Faculty of Basic Sciences,Lorestan University, Khorramabad, Iran. 117 pp.

Scheuten, A. 1857. Einiges uber Milben. Archiv furNaturgeschichte 23: 104–112.

Sepasgosarian, H. 1977. The 20 years research ofAcarology in Iran. J. Engine. Soc. Iran 56:40–50.

Shirdel, D., M. Arbabi and F. Faraji. 2009. Amblyseiusampullosus Wu and Lan (Acari: Phytoseiidae), anew species record for the Iranian fauna. Sys.Appl. Acarol. 14: 136–139.

Shirdel, D., K. Kamali and F. Faraji. 2008.Redescription of Typhloseiulus carmonae(Chant and Yoshida-Shaul) (Mesostigmata:Phytoseiidae) new species for Iran. Acarina16(1): 51–56.



Swirski, E. and S. Ragusa. 1976. Notes on preda-cious mites of Greece, with a description offive new species (Mesostigmata: Phytoseiidae).Phytoparasitica 4: 101–122.

Swirski, E., S. Ragusa and H. Tsolakis. 1998.Keys to the phytoseiid mites (Parasitiformes,Phytoseiidae) of Israel. Phytophaga 8: 85–154.

Ueckermann, E. A., M. Jalaeian, A. Sabooriand H. Seyedoleslami. 2009. Re-descriptionof Typhlodromus (Anthoseius) khosrovensis

Arutunjan, first record for Iran. Acarologia49(1–2): 23–27.

Wainstein, B. A. 1958. New species of mitesof the genus Typhlodromus (Parasitiformes:Phytoseiidae) from Georgia. Soobshch AkadNauk Gruz SSR (Georgia) 21: 201–207.

Zannou, I. D., G. D. Moraes, E. A. Ueckermann,A. R. Oliveira, J. S. Yaninek and R. Hanna. 2007.Phytoseiid mites of the subtribe Amblyseiina(Acari: Phytoseiidae: Amblyseiini) from sub-Saharan Africa. Zootaxa 1550: 1–47.


international journal of acarology re-descriptions of ... · international journal of acarology...

Documents