Khaustov, Vladimir A. ¹ and Khaustov, Alexander A. ²

¹✉ University of Tyumen, Institute of Environmental and Agricultural Biology (X-BIO), Tyumen, Russia.
²University of Tyumen, Institute of Environmental and Agricultural Biology (X-BIO), Tyumen, Russia.

2024 - Volume: 64 Issue: 4 pages: 1254-1262

ZooBank LSID: 1A8EC08F-1704-460D-AB81-CDFFA80E281F

Original research

Keywords

Abstract

Introduction

Predatory mites belonging to the family Phytoseiidae (Acari: Mesostigmata) are recognized as significant biological control agents against a range of phytophagous pests, including mites (primarily from the families Tetranychidae, Tenuipalpidae, Tarsonemidae, and Eriophyidae) and other small soft-bodied insects such as thrips and whiteflies (McMurtry et al. 2013). Mites from the subgenus Typhlodromus (Anthoseius) De Leon are distributed globally, predominantly inhabiting vascular plants. This subgenus is differentiated from its sister subgenus, Typhlodromus (Typhlodromus) Scheuten, by the presence of dorsal idiosomal setae S5. Mites of the subgenus Typhlodromus (Anthoseius) De Leon comprise the largest number of species in the subfamily Typhlodrominae, with approximately 400 described species, including synonyms (Demite et al. 2024). However, because most of species were originally described briefly and lack many important characters used in modern phytoseiid taxonomy, it is assumed that many synonyms exist (Döker et al. 2024a, b; Jose et al. 2024). The fauna of the subgenus Anthoseius in Russia currently includes about 23 species (Demite et al. 2024; Döker et al. 2021; Khaustov et al. 2021, 2022). The fauna of phytoseiid mites in the Republic of Dagestan is practically unknown, except for a single species, Amblyseius meridionalis Berlese (Makarova & Ermilov 2022).

In this study, we report Typhlodromus (Anthoseius) drori Amitai & Grinberg for the first time in Russia. A complementary description based on female and male specimens, collected from the Republic of Dagestan, Russia, is provided. In addition, T. (A.) tamaricis (Kolodochka) and T. (A.) beskaravainyi (Kuznetsov) are proposed as junior synonyms of T. (A.) drori, while T. (A.) eremitidis (Chaudhri, Akbar & Rasool) is considered a potential junior synonym.

Material and methods

The mites were extracted from the leaves and branches of various plants using Berlese-Tullgren funnels and collected in 2 ml tubes filled with 96% ethanol using a camel hairbrush (size 000). Subsequently, some of the mite specimens were treated with 80% lactic acid for clearing and then fixed in Hoyer's medium for further morphological analysis (Walter & Krantz 2009). The classification of Phytoseiidae mites follows Chant & McMurtry (2007). Dorsal setal nomenclature follows that of Lindquist & Evans (1965) and adapted by Rowell et al. (1978) for adult phytoseiids. The ventral idiosomal nomenclature follows that of Chant & Yoshida-Shaul (1991). The nomenclature of setae on leg segments is based on Evans (1963). The terminology for the dorsal solenostomes (gland pores) and poroids follows that of Athias-Henriot (1975). Measurements are presented in micrometers (µm) and are given in square brackets for the female holotype of T. (A.) beskaravainyi (Kuznetsov) with mean values and ranges in parentheses indicating variability for newly collected specimens. Morphological observations, illustrations, and measurements were conducted using the Axio Imager A2 compound microscope (Carl Zeiss, Germany), which is equipped with differential interference contrast and phase contrast optical systems. Digital images were captured using the Axiocam 506 colour (Carl Zeiss, Germany). Line drawings of mites were prepared in Adobe Photoshop CS2 using a Wacom Cintiq 16 (DTK1660K0B) interactive display and Wacom Pro Pen 2. The length of the dorsal shield was measured along the midline at the level of setae j1 and J5. The length of peritreme in female measured from basal margin of stigma to apex of peritreme. All examined specimens deposited in the mite collection of the Zoology Museum of Tyumen State University, Russia.

Results

Typhlodromus (Anthoseius) drori Grinberg & Amitai

(Figures 1–5)

Typhlodromus drori Grinberg & Amitai, 1970: 7.

Anthoseius beskaravainyi Kuznetsov, 1984: 385. New synonym.

Anthoseius (Amblydromellus) tamaricis Kolodochka, 1982: 11. New synonym.

Amblydromella eremitidis Chaudhri, Akbar & Rasool, 1974: 212. Suspected junior synonym.

Material examined

Fourteen females, two males on Tamarix sp. near river Shura-ozen, Kumtorkalinsky district, Dagestan Republic, Russia, 43°00′ N 47°14′ E, 11 May 2024, coll. Khaustov A.A.; holotype female of T. (A.) beskaravainyi (Kuznetsov), on fruit and herbaceous plants, slide number 203/1, Leningradsky district, Kulab Region, Tajikistan, 12 Aug. 1976, coll. Kuznetsov N.N.

Diagnosis

Female — Idiosoma setal pattern 12A:8A/JV: ZV (r3 and R1 off shield). Dorsal shield well reticulated, with five pairs of solenostomes (gd2, gd4, gd6, gd8, gd9); all dorsal setae smooth, except Z4 and Z5 slightly serrated. Peritremes extending to level between setae j3–z2. All ventral shields smooth; ventrianal shield pentagonal with four pairs of preanal setae and without preanal pores. Calyx of spermatheca narrow and tubular with nodular atrium incorporated to basal part of calyx. Fixed digit of chelicera with four teeth, movable digit with one tooth. Leg IV with three macrosetae SgeIV and StIV modified into club-shape and StiIV blunt-shaped. Trochanter I with six setae and genu II with seven setae.

Male — Idiosoma setal pattern 12A:8A/JV – 4: ZV – 1, 3 (r3 and R1 on shield). Dorsal shield well reticulated, with five pairs of solenostomes (gd2, gd4, gd6, gd8, gd9). Peritremes extending to level between setae z2–z3. Peritremal shield with a pair of enlarged solenostome gd3. Dorsal setae as in female. Ventrianal shield triangular, slightly reticulated, with four pairs of preanal setae and without preanal pores. Fixed digit of chelicera with three apical teeth and movable digit unidentate. Spermatodactyl L-shaped, large and expanded apically. Leg chaetotaxy, number and shape of macrosetae as in female.

Complementary description

Female (n = 5 + holotype female of T. (A.) beskaravainyi)

(Figures 1–4)

Dorsal idiosoma — (Figures 1A, 3A). Dorsal setal pattern 12A:8A (setae r3 and R1 off shield). Dorsal shield oval elongated, well reticulated, with constriction at level of R1, with five pairs of solenostomes (gd2, gd4, gd6, gd8, gd9) and 14 visible poroids (id1, id2, id4, id5, idm2, idm2, idm3, idm4, idm5, idm6, is1, idx, idl3, idl4); poroid idl1 situated on soft cuticle. Muscle-marks (sigillae) visible mostly on podosoma, length of dorsal shield [362] 353 (349–359), width at level of s4 [170] 174 (172–177), width at level S2 [–] 176 (172–180). Dorsal setae smooth, except Z4 and Z5 slightly serrated. Measurements of dorsal setae: j1 [24] 23 (21–24); j3 [28] 26 (23–28); j4 [14] 14 (13–14); j5 [15] 14 (14–15); j6 [17] 16 (15–17); J2 [20] 18 (17–20); J5 [6] 7 (6–8); z2 [20] 19 (17–20); z3 [20] 19 (17–20); z4 [20] 21 (20–21); z5 [15] 14 (13–15); Z4 [36] 33 (31–36); Z5 [54] 49 (47–52); s4 [24] 22 (20–24); s6 [28] 25 (23–26); S2 [30] 28 (26–29); S4 [28] 27 (25–28); S5 [28] 27 (23–32); r3 [23] 21 (20–23); R1 [25] 21 (19–23). Peritreme [142] 146 (145–148) in length, extending to level between setae j3–z2. Peritremal shield with small rounded solenostome gd3 and poroid id3.

Ventral idiosoma — (Figures 1B, 3B, 4A). Ventral setal pattern 15: JV: ZV. Sternal shield smooth, poorly sclerotized, [not measurable] 57 (54–59) in length (distance between ST1–iv2) and [not measurable] 58 (54–60), width (distance between bases of setae ST2); with two pairs of setae (ST1, ST2) and two pairs of poroids (iv1, iv2); setae ST3 situated on small poorly sclerotized shield; metasternal setae ST4 and poroids iv3 situated on metasternal shields. Genital shield smooth, width at level of setae ST5 [68] 66 (62–68), poroids iv5 on soft cuticle. One long slender platelet (genital sigilla) between genital and ventrianal shield. Ventral opisthosoma with two pairs of metapodal platelets, primary [28] 32 (31–34) and accessory [13] 10 (7–12). Ventrianal shield pentagonal, smooth, with four pairs of pre-anal setae (JV1, JV2, JV3, ZV2), one pair of para-anal setae PA, unpaired post-anal seta PST, preanal solenostomes gv3 absent. Length of ventrianal shield [111] 109 (106–113), width at the level of setae ZV2 [91] 91 (89–94). Setae ZV1, ZV3, JV4, JV5 and five pairs of poroids on soft cuticle surrounding ventrianal shield. Setae JV5 smooth and much longer than other ventral setae, [43] 39 (34–42) in length.

Chelicera — (Figures 1C, 3C, 4B). Fixed digit [not measurable] 28 (27–29) long, with five teeth, three of them apical and one situated near base of pilus dentilis; movable digit [not measurable] 28 (27–28) long with one tooth.

Spermatheca — (Figures 1D, 3D, 4C–D). Calyx tubular [24] 24 (22–24) long, with large nodular atrium incorporated to basal part of calyx. Major duct wide, minor duct not visible.

Legs — (Figures 2, 3E, 4E). Length of legs (distance between bases of coxae to bases of pretarsi): leg I [255] 276 (269–285); leg II [230] 243 (234–248); leg III [221] 251 (240–258); leg IV [325] 321 (318–325). Chaetotaxy as follows: Leg I: coxa 0 0/1 0/1 0, trochanter 1 0/1 1/2 1, femur 2 3/1 2/2 2, genu 2 2/1 2/1 2, tibia 2 2/1 2/1 2; Leg II: coxa 0 0/1 0/1 0, trochanter 1 0/1 0/2 1, femur 2 3/1 2/1 1, genu 2 2/0 2/0 1, tibia 1 1/1 2/1 1; leg III: coxa 0 0/1 0/1 0, trochanter 1 1/1 0/2 0, genu 1 2/1 2/0 1; tibia 1 1/1 2/1 1; Leg IV: coxa 0 0/1 0/0 0, trochanter 1 1/1 0/2 0, femur 1 2/1 1/0 1, genu 1 2/1 2/0 1, tibia 1 1/1 2/0 1. Chaetotaxy of tarsi II–IV is typical for Phytoseiidae with 18 setae 3 3/2 3/2 3 +mv, md. Leg IV with three macrosetae, club-shaped SgeIV [20] 23 (22–25) and StIV [50] 49 (47–52), blunt-shaped StiIV [21] 23 (22–24). Other segments of legs without macrosetae.

Male (n = 2)

(Figure 5).

Dorsal idiosoma — (Figure 5A). Dorsal setal pattern 12A:8A (setae r3 and R1 on shield). Dorsal shield oval, reticulated, length of dorsal shield 257–267, width at level of s4 136–168, width at level of S2 132–144. Dorsal shield with five pairs of solenostomes (gd2, gd4, gd6, gd8 and gd9) and 13 visible pairs of poroids. Muscle-marks (sigillae) visible mostly on podosoma. Dorsal setae smooth, except Z4 and Z5 slightly serrated. Measurements of dorsal setae: j1 17–18, j3 25–28, j4 12–13, j5 13–15, j6 15–16, J2 16–18, J5 7–8, z2 17–18, z3 15–18, z4 16–18, z5 13–15, Z4 26–30, Z5 37–45, s4 19–20, s6 21–25, S2 23–25, S4 23, S5 22–23, r3 20–21 and R1 17–19. Peritreme extending to level between setae z2–z3. Peritremal shield with a pair of enlarged solenostome gd3.

Ventral idiosoma — (Figure 5B). Ventral setal pattern 12:JV-4:ZV-1,3. Sternogenital shield smooth with a few lateral striae, with five pairs of setae (ST1–ST5) and two visible pairs of poroids (iv1, iv2); length (distance between bases of setae ST1–ST5) 112–113, width (distance between bases of setae ST2) 49. Ventrianal shield triangular, striated anterolaterally; with four pairs of pre-anal setae (JV1, JV2, JV3, and ZV2), a pair of para-anal seta (PA) and post-anal seta (PST), pre-anal solenostomes gv3 absent. Length of ventrianal shield (from anterior to posterior margins) 96–102, width at level of anterolateral corners 138–142. Seta JV5 and a pair of poroids ivp on soft cuticle surrounding ventrianal shield. Setae JV5 smooth, much longer than other ventral setae, 25–29 long.

Chelicera — (Figure 5C). Fixed digit of chelicera 23 long, with three sub-apical teeth and short pilus dentilis; movable digit 22 long with one tooth. Spermatodactyl L-shaped, large with toe expanded apically.

Legs — (Figure 5D). Length of legs (base of coxae to base of pretarsus): leg I 228–234; leg II 202–204; leg III 209–211; leg IV 265–273. Chaetotaxy formulae of the segments as in adult female. Leg IV with three macrosetae, club-shaped SgeIV 17 and StIV 38–44, blunt-shaped StiIV 18–20.

World distribution

Israel, Greece, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Russia (this study).

Remarks

Typhlodromus (Anthoseius) drori Grinberg & Amitai was initially described based on 34 female and 10 male specimens collected from Tamarix sp. in Ein Fesha, Southern District, Israel. Later, it was reported again from the same country (Swirski & Amitai 1985; Swirski et al. 1998). The specimens examined in our study closely match the original description, except that setae S5 are smooth in our specimens, whereas it was described as slightly serrated in the original description. However, Swirski et al. (1998) studied the holotype female and reported only setae Z4 and Z5 as being serrated.

Furthermore, upon examining the original descriptions of all known species from the subgenus Typhlodromus (Anthoseius), it was determined that T. (A.) tamaricis (Kolodochka, 1982), T. (A.) eremitidis (Chaudhri, Akbar & Rasool, 1974), and T. (A.) beskaravainyi (Kuznetsov, 1984) are morphologically very similar to T. (A.) drori.

The original description and redescriptions of T. (A.) tamaricis, are consistent with the original description of T. (A.) drori, except length of setae j3 (15), S4 (15) and S5 (15), which are almost two times shorter than in the original description of T. (A.) drori j3 27–33, S4 27–33, S5 30–42. However, in the original illustration of dorsal idiosoma (Figure 3.1, page 12 in Kolodochka 1982) of T. (A.) tamaricis, seta j3 is longer than j1 (23), and setae S4 and S5 are almost equal in length to seta S2 (28). Therefore, it is possible that there was an oversight in measurements of setae j3, S4 and S5. In addition, morphometric and morphological characters of original description of T. (A.) drori and the specimens examined in the current study well fit with the redescriptions of T. (A.) tamaricis by Stathakis et al. (2016), Fayaz et al. (2012) and Kasap and Çobanoglu (2009).

The original description of T. (A.) beskaravainyi closely resembles T. (A.) drori, except for differences in the number of teeth on the movable digit (two in T. (A.) beskaravainyi vs. one in T. (A.) drori and the reticulated ventrianal shield of the female. However, our examination of the holotype female of T. (A.) beskaravainyi reveals that the aforementioned morphological characters were likely described incorrectly in the original description and are, in fact, identical to those described in the original description of T. (A.) drori and the specimens examined in the current study.

Original description of T. (A.) eremitidis, described from Pakistan, is also totally consistent with T. (A.) drori based on idiosomal setal measurements. However, it differs in having a smooth dorsal shield and a club-shaped macroseta on the tibia of leg IV. These differences, along with the impossibility of examining the type material, prevent us to confidently asserting T. (A.) eremitidis is a junior synonym of T. (A.) drori. Therefore, in this study, we propose to considering T. (A.) eremitidis only as a potential junior synonym until a detailed examination of its type material can be conducted.

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation within the framework of the Federal Scientific and Technical Program for the Development of Genetic Technologies for 2019-2030 (agreement Nº075-15-2021-1345, unique identifier RF-193021X0012).

References

1. Athias-Henriot C. 1975. Nouvelles notes sur les Amblyseiini. II. Le relevé organotaxique de la face dorsale adulte (Gamasides, protoadéniques, Phytoseiidae). Acarologia, 17: 20-29.
2. 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
3. Chant D. A., Yoshida-Shaul E. 1991. Adult ventral setal patterns in the family Phytoseiidae (Acari: Gamasina). Int. J. Acarol., 17: 187-199. https://doi.org/10.1080/01647959108683906
4. Chaudhri W.M., Akbar S., Rasool, A. 1974. Taxonomic studies of the mites belonging to the families Tenuipalpidae, Tetranychidae, Tuckerellidae, Caligonellidae, Stigmaeidae and Phytoseiidae. University of Agriculture Technical Bulletin, Lyallpur, Pakistan, 1, 250 pp.
5. Demite P. R., Moraes G. J. de, McMurtry J. A., Denmark H. A., Castilho R. C. 2024. Phytoseiidae Database: http://www.lea.esalq.usp.br/phytoseiidae.
6. Döker I., Khaustov V.A., Joharchi O. 2021. A new species of Typhlodromus (Anthoseius) De Leon and redescription of T. (A.) montanus Chant & Yoshida-Shaul from Russia. Zootaxa, 4951: 372-380. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4951.2.10
7. Döker I., Atchia I., Jose A., Bolton S.J. 2024a. Complementary description of two Anthoseius De Leon (Acari: Phytoseiidae) species based on their holotypes with new synonyms. Acarologia, 64: 192-201. https://doi.org/10.24349/gt2k-nkkv
8. Döker I., Weliwattage A., Jose A., Gunasingham M. 2024b. Complementary description of the female of Typhlodromus (Anthoseius) xini Wu (Acari: Phytoseiidae) with the first description of its male from Sri Lanka. Acarologia, 64: 833-842.
9. Evans G. O. 1963. Observations on the chaetotaxy of the legs in the free-living Gamasina (Acari: Mesostigmata). Bull. Br. Mus. Nat. Hist., Zool., 10: 275-303. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.part.20528
10. Fayaz B.A., Khanjani M., Hajizadeh J., Ueckermann E.A. 2012. A re-description of Typhlodromus (Anthoseius) tamaricis (Kolodochka) (Mesostigmata: Phytoseiidae), a first record for Iran. Acarologia, 52: 425-431. https://doi.org/10.1051/acarologia/20122071
11. Grinberg T., Amitai S. 1970. Description of a new Typhlodromus (Acarina: Phytoseiidae) from the Dead Sea region in Israel. Isr. J. Entomol., 5: 7-11.
12. Jose A., Döker I., Channegowda C., Hiremath R. 2024. Complementary description of three species of the subgenus Anthoseius De Leon (Acari: Phytoseiidae) from India. Syst. Appl. Acarol., 29: 305-323. https://doi.org/10.11158/saa.29.2.10
13. Kasap I., Çobanoglu S. 2009. Phytoseiid mites of Hakkâri province, with Typhlodromus (Anthoseius) tamaricis Kolodochka, 1982 (Acari: Phytoseidae), a new record for the predatory mite fauna of Turkey. Turk. J. Zool., 33: 301-308. https://doi.org/10.3906/zoo-0805-9
14. Khaustov V.A., Döker I., Joharchi O. 2021. A new species of Typhlodromus (Anthoseius) De Leon (Acari: Mesostigmata: Phytoseiidae) from Sakhalin Island, Russia. Acarina, 29: 257-265. https://doi.org/10.21684/0132-8077-2021-29-2-257-265
15. Khaustov V.A., Döker I., Joharchi O., Khaustov A.A., Homidov S. 2022. Redescription of Typhlodromus (Anthoseius) kuznetsovi (Denmark and Welbourn) (Acari: Phytoseiidae) based on holotype and newly collected material from Tajikistan. Acarina, 30: 225-231. https://doi.org/10.21684/0132-8077-2022-30-2-225-231
16. Kolodochka L.A. 1982. New phytoseiid mites (Parasitiformes: Phytoseiidae) from Turkmen. Vestn. Zool., 6: 7-13 [in Russian].
17. Kuznetsov N.N. 1984. New species of predacious mites of the family Phytoseiidae (Parasitiformes) in the USSR. Entomol. Obozr., 63: 384-397 [in Russian].
18. Lindquist E. E., Evans G. O. 1965. Taxonomic concepts in the Ascidae with a modified setal nomenclature for the idiosoma of the Gamasina (Acarina: Mesostigmata). Mem. Entomol. Soc. Canada, 47: 1-64. https://doi.org/10.4039/entm9747fv
19. Makarova O.L., Ermilov S.G. 2022. First data on the mites (Mesostigmata, Oribatida) from sea debris of the Caspian Sea (Dagestan coast, Russia). Persian J. Acarol., 11: 633-642.
20. McMurtry J. A., Moraes G. J. de, Sourassou N. F. 2013. Revision of the lifestyles of phytoseiid mites (Acari: Phytoseiidae) and implications for biological control strategies. Syst. Appl. Acarol., 18: 297-320. https://doi.org/10.11158/saa.18.4.1
21. Rowell H. J., Chant D. A., Hansell R. I. C. 1978. The determination of setal homologies and setal patterns on the dorsal shield in the family Phytoseiidae (Acarina: Mesostigmata). Can. Entomol., 110: 859-876. https://doi.org/10.4039/Ent110859-8
22. Stathakis T.I., Kapaxidi E.V., Papadoulis G.Th. 2016. A new species and three new records of Phytoseiidae (Acari: Mesostigmata) found on coastal and wetland vegetation in Greece. Syst. Appl. Acarol., 21: 567-582. https://doi.org/10.11158/saa.21.5.2
23. Swirski E., Amitai S. 1985. Notes on phytoseiid mites (Mesostigmata: Phytoseiidae) from the Dead Sea region of Israel. Isr. J. Entomol., 19: 181-192.
24. Swirski E., Ragusa Di Chiara S., Tsolakis H. 1998. Keys to the phytoseiid mites (Parasitiformes, Phytoseiidae) of Israel. Phytophaga, Palermo, 8: 85-154.
25. Walter D. E., Krantz G. W. 2009. Collecting, rearing and preparing specimens. In: G. W. Krantz and D. E. Walter (Eds.). A Manual of Acarology. 3rd edition. Texas Tech University Press, Lubbock.

instructions