Iphiseiodes metapodalis (El-Banhawy)

Lofego, Antonio Carlos, Barbosa, Marina Ferraz De Camargo, Demite, Peterson Rodrigo & Moraes, Gilberto José De, 2024, Phytoseiidae (Acari: Mesostigmata) of the subfamily Amblyseiinae from Brazil, Zootaxa 5439 (1), pp. 1-306 : 97-98

Iphiseiodes metapodalis (El-Banhawy) ( Figure 70)

Amblyseius metapodalis El-Banhawy, 1984: 132 .

Paraamblyseius metapodalis . — Moraes et al., 1986: 103; Denmark, 1988: 37.

Iphiseiodes metapodalis . — Chant & McMurtry, 2004b: 305, 2007: 98; Moraes et al., 2004b: 90; Ferla et al., 2011: 20; Souza et al., 2015: 110 .

Specimens measured. BA, RS (2, 1).

Dorsal shield of female smooth, 386 (358–434) long and 321 (310–355) wide. Setal lengths: j1 22 (20–25), j3 32 (24–36), j4 6 (4–6), j5 5 (4–5), j6 6 (5–7), J2 6 (6–8), J5 9 (8–9), z2 6 (5–7), z4 6 (5–7), z5 6 (4–7), Z1 7 (6–9), Z4 131 (105–150), Z5 170 (110–200), s4 130 (93–147), S2 7 (6–8), S4 7 (6–8), S5 7 (5–8), r3 8 (6–8) and R1 7 (6–8). Peritreme extending to level of j3. Distances between st1–st3 53 (50–57), st2–st2 75 (68–80), st5–st5 104 (95–110). Ventrianal shield 124 (110–150) long, 162 (150–170) wide at level of Zv2 and 111 (110–125) at anus level. With only one large pair of metapodal plates. Spermathecal calyx cup-shaped, 16 (12–22) long; atrium elongate, rendering a funnel-shaped aspect to the calyx. Fixed cheliceral digit 28 (25–30) long, with nine teeth; movable digit 33 (30–35)

long, with three teeth. Macrosetae on legs I–IV, sharp-tipped; SgeI 62 (55–70), SgeII 39 (35–40), SgeIII 66 (60–70), SgeIV 142 (130–155), StiIII 31 (30–35), StiIV 79 (70–85) and StIV 46 (35–55).

Distribution in Brazil. Bahia ( Souza et al., 2012, 2015; Nuvoloni et al., 2015a, 2022; Argolo et al., 2017), Espírito Santo ( El-Banhawy, 1984), Rio Grande do Sul ( Diehl et al., 2012, Ferla & Moraes, 1998, 2002 b, Ferla et al., 2011, Johann et al., 2014, Mecke et al., 2000) and Santa Catarina ( Fenilli & Flechtmann, 1990).

Distribution elsewhere. Not reported.

Remarks. Species described from Brazil. The measurements are similar to those of the original description, except for having dorsal shield 2.2 times wider. However, according to Souza et al. (2015), considering the illustration of the holotype, the reported width of 147 is probably a mistake. In addition, the measurements are similar to the redescription by Denmark (1988).