Neoseiulus californicus (McGregor)

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 : 199-202

Neoseiulus californicus (McGregor) ( Figure 139)

Typhlodromus californicus McGregor, 1954: 89 .

Typhlodromus californicus .— McGregor, 1956: 8.

Amblyseius californicus .— Schuster & Pritchard, 1963: 271; McMurtry, 1977: 21; El-Banhawy, 1979: 113; Beglyarov, 1981: 41; Pickett & Gilstrap, 1984: 126; Vacante & Nucifora, 1987: 158; Ramirez et al., 1988: 53; Çakmak & Çobanoðlu, 2006: 56; Jung et al., 2006: 322.

Cydnodromus californicus .— Athias-Henriot, 1977: 63.

Neoseiulus californicus . — Ferragut et al., 1983: 302, 2010: 82; Moraes et al., 1986: 73, 2004b: 109; Yaninek et al., 1989: 111; Denmark et al., 1999: 71; Chant & McMurtry, 2003a: 21, 2007: 25; Ehara & Amano, 2004: 3; Ferla et al., 2007: 105, 2011: 21; Guanilo & Martínez, 2007: 119; Guanilo et al., 2008a: 27, 2008b: 19; Tixier et al., 2008: 456, 2013: 111, 2014: 270, 2016: 512, 2021: 830; Lofego et al., 2009: 49 ; Papadoulis et al., 2009: 89; Guichou et al., 2010: 272; Kanouh et al., 2010: 454; Kreiter et al., 2010: 157, 2020b: 120; Denmark & Evans, 2011: 132; Faraji et al., 2011: 228; Kade et al., 2011: 135 ; Klock et al., 2011: 525; Adar et al., 2012: 352; Sahraoui et al., 2012: 438; Tixier, 2012: 492, 2013: 330; Xu et al. 2013: 332; D̂ker et al., 2014: 338, 2015: 444, 2016: 520; Rocha et al., 2014: 274, 2015: 27; Tsolakis & Ragusa, 2016: 403; Chatti et al., 2017: 240 ; Ferragut & Navia, 2017: 1586, 2022b: 526 ; Beaulieu & Beard, 2018: 488 ; Trincado et al., 2018: 328 ; Peralta & Tello, 2019: 150; Li et al. 2020: 72; Fan et al. 2024: 204.

Amblyseius (Amblyseius) californicus .— Ueckermann & Loots, 1988: 150; Ehara et al., 1994: 126.

Amblyseius (Neoseiulus) californicus .— Ehara & Amano, 1998: 33.

Typhlodromus mungeri McGregor, 1954: 92 (synonymy according to Athias-Henriot, 1959: 137).

Typhlodromus (Iphidulus) mungeri .— McGregor, 1956: 8.

Amblyseius mungeri .— Athias-Henriot, 1959: 137.

Neoseiulus mungeri . — Moraes et al., 1986: 74, 2004b: 111; Chant & McMurtry, 2003a: 23, 2007: 29.

Typhlodromus chilenensis Dosse, 1958: 55 (synonymy according to Athias-Henriot, 1977: 62).

Amblyseius chilenensis . — Gonzalez & Schuster, 1962: 10; Ehara, 1964: 383; Athias-Henriot, 1966: 213.

Amblyseius (Amblyseius) chilenensis .— Ehara, 1966b: 20.

Neoseiulus chilenensis . — Moraes et al., 1986: 74, 2004b: 110; Chant & McMurtry, 2003a: 21, 2007: 25.

Amblyseius wearnei Schicha, 1987: 103 (synonymy according to Tixier et al., 2014: 275).

Neoseiulus wearnei . — Beard, 2001: 105; Chant & McMurtry, 2003a: 23, 2007: 31; Moraes et al., 2004b: 151; Tixier et al., 2014: 270.

Specimens measured. PR, RS, SP (1, 1, 5).

Dorsal shield of female reticulated, 370 (362–395) long and 182 (177–195) wide. Setal lengths: j1 24 (20–27), j3 30 (24–32), j4 22 (17–25), j5 22 (20–25), j6 29 (25–35), J2 32 (30–35), J5 11 (8–12), z2 30 (26–31), z4 29 (25–31), z5 23 (20–32), Z1 31 (29–32), Z4 51 (48–60), Z5 66 (60–70), s4 37 (35–40), S2 39 (37–40), S4 34 (30–35), S5 29 (25–32), r3 24 (22–25) and R1 21 (17–23). Peritreme extending forward almost to level of j1. Distances between st1–st3 64 (60–67), st2–st2 63 (57–66), st5–st5 69 (67–72). Ventrianal shield 130 (122–137) long, 110 (105–122) wide at level of Zv2 and 95 (90–97) wide at anus level. Spermathecal calyx cup-shaped to bell-shaped, 12 (10–15) long; atrium nodular. Fixed cheliceral digit 24 (21–30) long, with five teeth; movable digit 26 (24–29) long, with three teeth. Macroseta only on basitarsus IV, sharp-tipped; StIV 53 (51–55) .

Distribution in Brazil. Bahia ( Ferragut & Navia, 2022b) Paraná ( Hata et al. 2022; Araujo et al., 2022a; Silva et al., 2022), Rio Grande do Sul ( Ferla & Moraes, 1998, 2002b; Ferla et al., 2007, 2011; Silva et al., 2008, 2019, 2020; Roggia et al., 2009; Eichelberger et al., 2011; Klock et al., 2011; Marchetti & Ferla, 2011; Diehl et al., 2012; Johan & Ferla, 2012; Johann et al., 2014; Reichert et al., 2014; Rocha et al., 2014; Furtado et al., 2019; Gonçalves et al., 2019; Toldi et al., 2021a, b; Silva et al., 2019, 2022), Santa Catarina ( Silva et al., 2022) and São Paulo ( Bellini et al., 2005a; Lofego et al., 2009; Montes et al., 2011).

Distribution elsewhere. Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Azores, Canada, Canary Islands, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Cyprus, France, Georgia, Greece, Guadeloupe, Guatemala, Italy, Japan, Madeira, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Peru, Portugal, Reunion Island, Senegal, Serbia, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Syria, Taiwan, Tunisia, Turkey, Uruguay, USA, Venezuela and Vietnam.

Remarks. Measurements are similar to the characterisation of N. californicus by Schuster & Pritchard (1963) and to the redescription by Beaulieu & Beard (2018).