Typhlodromips constrictatus (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 : 243-244

Typhlodromips constrictatus (El-Banhawy) ( Figure 169)

Amblyseius constrictatus El-Banhawy, 1984: 134 .

Neoseiulus constrictatus .— Moraes et al., 1986: 76, 2004b: 114.

Typhlodromips constrictatus . — Chant & McMurtry, 2005c: 325, 2007: 61; Ferragut & Navia, 2022a: 1236 .

According to El-Banhawy (1984), dorsal shield of female reticulate, 290 long and 188 wide. Setal lengths: j1 10, j3 14, j4 11, j5 10, j6 16, J2 15, J5 9, z2 14, z4 12, z5 12, Z1 18, Z4 27, Z5 56, s4 19, S2 19, S4 14, S5 13, r3 14 and R1 12. Peritreme extending to level of j1. Ventrianal shield 98 long and 96 wide at level of Zv2. Spermatheca not discernible. Fixed cheliceral digit with eight. Macrosetae only on leg IV, slightly knobbed; SgeIV 17, StiIV 14 and StIV 27 .

Distribution in Brazil. Bahia ( Nuvoloni et al., 2015a), Espírito Santo ( El-Banhawy, 1984) and Minas Gerais (Silva et al., 2010; Ferragut & Navia, 2022a).

Distribution elsewhere. Not reported.

Remarks. Species described from Brazil. Specimens were not examined in this study, but an evaluation of what is available in the literature leads us to the conclusion that this species is very similar, if not identical, to T. cananeiensis . Typhlodromips constrictatus was described based on a single specimen, the holotype, collected in the state of Espirito Santo. Unfortunately, the spermatheca was not in an adequate position to be described. In the subsequent reports of T. constrictatus by Nuvoloni et al. (2015a) and Silva et al. (2010), no information was provided about the morphology of the specimens collected, hampering a re-evaluation of the identification provided. The measurements provided in the original descriptions of those species are very similar, except for the shorter j1, the absence of macrosetae on legs I–III and the shorter macrosetae of genu, tibia and tarsus of leg IV of T. constrictatus . A detailed morphological characterisation of specimens collected in Minas Gerais was provided by Ferragut & Navia (2022a). Differently from their conclusion, their measurements of those setae are closer to the type specimens of T. cananeiensis , although the illustration of the spermatheca of their specimens seems somewhat different from what was shown in the original description of this species; additionally, these authors reported macrosetae to be absent on legs I–III, which is typical of T. constrictatus , not of T. cananeiensis . Thus, based on the measurements of j1 and on the characteristics of the leg macrosetae, these species are provisionally considered separate taxonomic entities in this publication.