Phytoseius coheni Swirski & Shechter, 1961
|
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.24349/acarologia/20204382 |
|
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4530673 |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/A479FF3F-9601-220F-FE4C-FA54FD513F31 |
|
treatment provided by |
Felipe |
|
scientific name |
Phytoseius coheni Swirski & Shechter |
| status |
|
Phytoseius coheni Swirski & Shechter View in CoL
Phytoseius (Dubininellus) macropilis coheni Swirski & Shechter 1961: 104 View in CoL .
Phytoseius (Phytoseius) macropilis coheni, Ehara 1966: 26 View in CoL .
Phytoseius (Dubininellus) coheni, Swirski & Golan 1967: 226 View in CoL ; Wu 1997: 153.
Phytoseius (Phytoseius) coheni, Moraes et al. 1986: 219 View in CoL .
Phytoseius coheni, Moraes et al. 2004: 235 View in CoL ; Chant & McMurtry 2007: 129.
Phytoseius hawaiiensis Prasad 1968: 1460 View in CoL (synonymy according to Denmark & Evans 2011). Phytoseius huangi Ehara 1970: 62 View in CoL (synonymy according to Ehara 2002).
Phytoseius jianfengensis Chen, Chu & Zhou 1980: 15 View in CoL (synonymy according to Wu 1997).
This species belongs to the horridus species group as setae J2 and R1 are absent ( Chant and McMurtry 1994). It was described from Hong-Kong by Swirski and Shechter (1961) collected on a wide range of plants and very common on citrus. Although species of the genus Phytoseius are considered to belong to the type III (polyphagous generalist predators) of McMurtry and Croft (1997) and McMurtry et al. (2013), its specific biology is totally unknown.
World distribution: Australia, China, Hawaii, Hong-Kong, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Mauritius, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Singapore, Tahiti, Taiwan, Thailand, USA.
Specimens examined: 4 ♀♀ and 1 ♂ in total. Curepipe, Bld Pasteur (aasl 510 m, lat. 20°19 ′ 21 ″ S, long. 57°31 ′ 45 ″ E), 4 ♀♀ and 1 ♂ on Sphaeropteris cooperi (Hooker ex F. Mueller) R.M. Tryon (Cyatheaceae) , 4/XI/2018.
Remarks: This species was first reported from Mauritius by Schicha (1984) under the junior synonym name P. hawaiensis . Ferragut and Baumann (2019) recovered the species. Kreiter et al. (2020b) had recently reported this species from Vietnam. Morphological and morphometric characters and all measurements of our specimens fit well measurements in Kreiter et al. (2020b).
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 |
Phytoseius coheni Swirski & Shechter
| Kreiter, Serge & Abo-Shnaf, Reham I. A. 2020 |
Phytoseius coheni
| Chant D. A. & McMurtry J. A. 2007: 129 |
| Moraes G. J. de & McMurtry J. A. & Denmark H. A. & Campos C. B. 2004: 235 |
Phytoseius (Phytoseius) coheni
| Moraes G. J. de & McMurtry J. A. & Denmark H. A. 1986: 219 |
Phytoseius jianfengensis
| Chen S. - W. & Chu C. - M. & Zhou F. - W. 1980: 15 |
Phytoseius hawaiiensis
| Ehara S. 1970: 62 |
| Prasad V. 1968: 1460 |
Phytoseius (Dubininellus) coheni
| Wu W. N. 1997: 153 |
| Swirski E. & Golan Y. 1967: 226 |
Phytoseius (Phytoseius) macropilis coheni
| Ehara S. 1966: 26 |
Phytoseius (Dubininellus) macropilis coheni
| Swirski E. & Shechter R. 1961: 104 |