Neoseiulus goiano Demite, Cavalcante & Lofego, 2017, 2157
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.5120.4.4 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:387A79A2-9F77-4FEA-9BBB-7B57343BB692 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6402181 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03C07A60-FF92-FF97-FF33-81FBB602FD23 |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Neoseiulus goiano Demite, Cavalcante & Lofego, 2017 |
status |
|
Neoseiulus goiano Demite, Cavalcante & Lofego, 2017
Neoseiulus goiano Demite, Cavalcante & Lofego, 2017: 2157 .
Specimens examined. Four females on Chamaecrista sp. (Fabaceae) ; gallery forest, road MG-010 between Cardeal Mota and Morro do Pilar, Serra do Cipó, 19º15’29”S, 43º33’10”W, 1315 m asl; 14 August 2011. One female on Cantinoa sp. (Lamiaceae) ; rupestrian grassland, near road MG-010, Serra do Cipó, 19º16’10”S, 43º32’58”W, 1245 m asl; 15 August 2011.
Geographical distribution. Previously known from the state of Goiás in Brazil.
Additional description (five females). Dorsal shield 327 (320–332) long, 187 (185–188) wide. Dorsal setae smooth, except Z4 and Z5, which are conspicuously barbed in the distal part (about 10 barbs in Z4, 16–18 barbs in Z5). Setae j1 25 (24–25), j3 34 (33–35), j4 19 (18–22), j5 19 (16–20), j6 22 (20–25), J2 25 (23–28), J5 8 (7–8), z2 27 (24–28), z4 33 (31–36), z5 19 (18–20), Z1 31 (29–33), Z4 43 (41–45), Z5 64 (60–70), s4 46 (44–48), S2 37 (36–39), S4 23 (20–25), S5 19 (17–23). Sublateral setae r3 24 (21–28), R1 17 (15–18). Six-seven pairs of dorsal solenostomes, pore gd6 undiscernible in some females; pore gd5 punctiform and posteroparaxial to setae z5, the remaining gland openings horseshoe shaped; pore gd9 paraxial and adjacent to the insertions of setae S5. Peritremes pretty narrow, with two rows of longitudinal microvilli; 192 (187–198) long. Ventrally, the presternal region bears two lateral areas sclerotised and granulated. Sternal shield wider than long; anterior margin slightly concave and sinuous, posterior margin concave. Shield 66 (64–69) long and 84 (77–88) wide; distance setae st1–st3 62 (61–63), st2–st2 73 (67–77). Setae st3 inserted near the margin of rounded posterior projections of the shield. Epigynal shield 118 (115–122) long, distance st5–st5 67 (65–68). Ventrianal shield 113 (109–114) long, 74 (70–78) wide at level of setae ZV2, 63 (62–64) wide at level of anus. Distance between pre-anal solenostomes 16 (14–18). Posterior (primary) metapodal shield 24 (22–27) long; anterior (secondary) metapodal 18 (17–19). Setae JV4 twice as long as setae ZV3 (19–22 and 10–11, respectively); setae JV5 48 (43–52). Major duct of the spermatheca only visible near the junction with the rest of the spermathecal apparatus; apparently is vacuolated distally; calyx short and tubular, (8–9) long, (6–7) wide, with almost parallel sides. Cheliceral fixed digit 32 (30–33), with eight teeth, two subapical more developed and six proximal aligned; movable digit 30 (29–31), with three teeth. Erect and knobbed macrosetae on genu IV 29 (27–32), tibia IV 12 (11–13) and basitarsus IV 37 (35–39) long.
Remarks. Setal measurements and dimensions of sclerotised shields in the females examined are coincident with those reported in the original description of the species ( Demite et al., 2017). These authors considered that the leg IV bears three macrosetae; curiously the one on tibia IV is the shorter seta on the segment and can only be distinguished by its morphology, terminating in a distal knob.
The structure of the spermathecal apparatus reminds that of N. tunus (De Leon) and can be found in other Neotropical Amblyseiinae species, like Amblyseius operculatus De Leon. Even though in the original description of N. goiano it is claimed that the atrium is not visible, from the microscopic observation is not clear whether the sclerotised area at the base of the calyx really belongs to the calyx or represents the enlarged and strongly compressed and flattened C-shaped atrium.
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
Neoseiulus goiano Demite, Cavalcante & Lofego, 2017
Ferragut, Francisco & Navia, Denise 2022 |
Neoseiulus goiano
Cavalcante, A. C. C. & Demite, P. R. & Amaral, F. S. R. & Lofego, A. C. & de Moraes, G. J. 2017: 2157 |