Typhlodromus (Typhlodromus) exhilaratus Ragusa, 1977

Kreiter, Serge, Douin, Martial & Tixier, Marie Stephane, 2021, New records of phytoseiid mites (Acari: Mesostigmata) from Madeira Island, Acarologia 61 (2), pp. 217-240 : 230

Typhlodromus (Typhlodromus) exhilaratus Ragusa

Typhlodromus exhilaratus Ragusa 1977: 380 .

Typhlodromus exhilaratus exhilarates, Chant & Yoshida­Shaul 1987: 1795 .

Typhlodromus exhilaratus americanus, Chant & Yoshida­Shaul 1987: 1795 . Typhlodromus (Typhlodromus) exhilaratus, Mores et al. 2004: 371 , Chant & McMurtry 2007:

157.

Typhlodromus (T.) exhilaratus has been wrongly considered as a synonym of T. tiliae Oudemans by Denmark (1992). This species has been mainly reported in the Mediterranean basin. It is quite common in some vineyards in France and Italy ( Tixier et al., 2006 ; Castagnoli et al., 2002). Liguori and Guidi (1990) have shown its ability to feed on the main mite pest in South European vineyards, E o tetranychus carpini (Oudemans). Typhlodromus (T.) exhilaratus is known from Morocco, it was reported by Tixier et al. (2003) from vineyards in the region of Meknes but it is also observed on various plants and locations ( Tixier et al. 2016). This is the first record of that species in Madeira Island.

Specimens examined: 20 specimens (19 ♀♀ and 1 ♂) collected during this study. Canical, Quinta do Lorde (20 m aasl, 32°44 ′ 36 ″ N, 16°42 ′ 20 ″ W), 17 ♀♀ and 1 ♂ on Chamaecyparis lawsonia (Murray) Parlatore (Cupressaceae) , 17/V/2019 ; Punta do Sol, City center (249 m

aasl, 32°40 ′ 18 ″ N, 17°4 ′ 00 ″ W), 1 ♀ on Rosa canina L. ( Rosaceae ), 18/V/2019 ; Portela (670

m aasl, 32°44 ′ 50 ″ N, 16°49 ′ 33 ″ W), 1 ♀ on Laurus azorica (Seubert) Franco (Lauraceae) , 23/V/2019.

Previous records: Austria, Cyprus, Egypt ( Abo­Shnaf & Moraes, 2014), France, Greece, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Morocco, Tunisia, USA.

Remarks: morphological and morphometric characters and all measurements of our specimens fit well with measurements of the re­description of Chant and Yoshida­Shaul (1987). This species is the third more abundant (17%) after E. stipulatus (22%) and A. herbicolus (21

%) but it is not very frequent (only 10% of the total samples against 31% for E. stipulatus and 31% for A. herbicolus ).