Acarologia
A quarterly journal of acarology, since 1959
Publishing on all aspects of the Acari
All information:
http://www1.montpellier.inra.fr/CBGP/acarologia/
acarologia-contact@supagro.fr
Acarologia is proudly non-profit,
with no page charges and free open access
Please help us maintain this system by
encouraging your institutes to subscribe to the print version of the journal
and by sending us your high quality research on the Acari.
Subscriptions: Year 2023 (Volume 63): 450 €
http://www1.montpellier.inra.fr/CBGP/acarologia/subscribe.php
Previous volumes (2010-2021): 250 € / year (4 issues)
Acarologia, CBGP, CS 30016, 34988 MONTFERRIER-sur-LEZ Cedex, France
ISSN 0044-586X (print), ISSN 2107-7207 (electronic)
The digitalization of Acarologia papers prior to 2000 was supported by Agropolis Fondation under
the reference ID 1500-024 through the « Investissements d’avenir » programme
(Labex Agro: ANR-10-LABX-0001-01)
Acarologia is under free license and distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons-BY
Scapulaseius asiaticus (Evans) and S.
reptans (Blommers) (Mesostigmata:
Phytoseiidae): one or two species?
Serge Kreiter a , Francisco Ferragut b
a
Institut Agro-Montpellier SupAgro, UMR CBGP INRA/ IRD/ CIRAD/ SupAgro, 755 Avenue du
Campus Agropolis (Baillarguet), CS 30016, 34988 Montferrier-sur-Lez cedex, France.
b
Instituto Agroforestal Mediterráneo, Universitat Politècnica de València, Valencia, Spain.
Original research
ABSTRACT
We compare published morphometric measurements of females and males of Scapulaseius
asiaticus (Evans) and S. reptans (Blommers) collected in various countries, with new
measurements and character states of type specimens of both species and additional
material. The aim is to establish definitively whether the two species are synonyms or not.
This paper follows the doubt on the taxonomic status of the former and the hypothesis of
conspecificity of the two species formulated by both authors in previous papers concerning
Mauritius phytoseiid fauna. Setal and shield measurements were highly similar between
species. In addition, other morphological characters previously used to separate these
taxa, such as the position of setae R1, showed a wide intraspecific variability, and largely
overlapped between populations previously identified as S. asiaticus vs S. reptans. We
conclude that the two forms are conspecific and, therefore, S. reptans is herein designated
a junior synonym of S. asiaticus.
Keywords survey; collection; predators; taxonomy; systematics; synonymy
Introduction
Received 26 July 2021
Accepted 29 September 2021
Published 30 September 2021
Corresponding author
Serge Kreiter :
serge.kreiter@supagro.fr
Academic editor
Tsolakis, Haralabos
https://doi.org/
10.24349/tyea-u51Q
ISSN 0044-586X (print)
ISSN 2107-7207 (electronic)
Copyright
Kreiter S. and Ferragut F.
Mites of the family Phytoseiidae are famous for their predatory behaviours on phytophagous
mites and small insects on cultivated plants and wild vegetation. Several species are commercialised for the control of pest organisms in agricultural open fields and, above all, in protected
crops all around the world (McMurtry and Croft 1997, McMurtry et al. 2013, Knapp et al.
2018). This family is widespread around the world, present on all inhabited continents and
consists presently of 2,521 valid species belonging to 95 genera, 15 tribes and three sub-families
(Chant and McMurtry 2007, Demite et al. 2021).
Biodiversity surveys in poorly investigated areas is still an urgent need and might result in
the discovery of additional species potentially useful for biological control as well as having
more information on the biodiversity of these areas and on taxonomy of species discovered.
Most of the Indian Ocean constitutes one of the world’s biodiversity hotspots (Myers 1988,
Myers et al. 2000). Knowledge of the phytoseiid diversity in these areas may contribute to
future establishment of conservation programs as well as biocontrol agents.
Mascareignes Archipelago is composed of three main islands: La Réunion, Mauritius and
Rodrigues, all located in the East of Madagascar. Comoros Archipelago is composed of four
main Islands: Mayotte, Anjouan, Mohéli and Grande Comore, located in the Northwest of
Madagascar.
Ferragut and Baumann (2019) have investigated the Mauritian fauna of Phytoseiidae
in April 2018. All main Islands of the two Archipelagos (except La Réunion which was
investigated before, see Kreiter et al. 2020c) were investigated from October 25th to December
Distributed under
Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0
How to cite this article Kreiter S. and Ferragut F. (2021), Scapulaseius asiaticus (Evans) and S. reptans (Blommers) (Mesostigmata: Phytoseiidae): one or two species?. Acarologia 61(3): 747-757. https://doi.org/10.24349/
tyea-u51Q
12th , 2018. Results of Phytoseiidae records during this survey were already published in seven
papers: Kreiter and Abo-Shnaf 2020a & b for Rodrigues and Mauritius (in addition for
Mauritius, see Kreiter et al. 2018a); Kreiter et al. 2020a, 2021b, c & d for Mayotte, Anjouan,
Mohéli, and Grande Comore (in addition for Grande Comore, see Kreiter et al. 2018b), and
Kreiter et al. (submitted) for description of six new species and six newly collected unknown
males, respectively.
During these surveys in Mascareignes, two of the common species were Scapulaseius
asiaticus (Evans) and S. reptans (Blommers). Authors have mentioned that these two species
are morphologically very close (Ferragut and Baumann 2019; Kreiter and Abo-Shnaf 2020b).
The objective of this paper is to test the hypothesis of synonymy between these two
species of the genus Scapulaseius, suspected by Ferragut and Baumann (2019) and Kreiter and
Abo-Shnaf (2020b) after surveys in Mauritius Island.
Material and methods
The material examined comes from several surveys conducted by the senior author and from
the type specimens of both species borrowed from the respective collections.
Surveys were done in La Réunion Island in 2016-2017 (see Kreiter et al. 2020c), in Vietnam
in 2017 (Kreiter et al. 2020b), in Mauritius Island in 2017 (see Kreiter et al. 2018a) and in
2018 (see Ferragut and Baumann 2019 and Kreiter and Abo-Shnaf 2020b). Specimens were
collected from cultivated and wild plants in several locations. Mites were directly collected
on leaves with a fine brush or by beating the plants and collecting the mites in a black plastic
rectangular saucer 45 x 30 cm (Ref. STR 45, BHR, 71370 Saint-Germain-du-Plain, France),
depending on the plant investigated:
• large leaves of shrubs and trees with the direct collection method or by beating;
• very small leaves, spiny shrubs, trees and herbaceous plants with the beating method.
We transferred the mites with a brush into small plastic vials containing 1.5 ml of 70%
ethanol. The mites were then all slide-mounted in Hoyer’s medium (Walter and Krantz 2009),
the slides were dried at 45-50o C for at least two weeks and then all examined and identified
using a phase and interferential contrast microscope (DMLB, Leica Microsystèmes SAS,
Nanterre, France). We used a graded eyepiece for measuring characters of specimens (Leica,
see above).
Moreover, the following type and additional material have been borrowed and studied:
• The holotype, two paratype females and one paratype male of Scapulaseius asiaticus
(Evans), from the reference collection of the National History Museum (NHM), Department of Life Sciences (Entomology), Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, United Kingdom;
• The holotype, four paratype females, two paratype males, 17 additional female and four
additional male specimens as additional material of Scapulaseius reptans (Blommers),
housed in the mites reference collection of the Naturalis Biodiversity Center, Darwinweg
2, 2333 CR Leiden, The Netherlands.
Chant and McMurtry’s (1994, 2007) concepts of the taxonomy of the family Phytoseiidae
and the world catalogue database of Demite et al. (2014, 2021) were used for identification
and for distribution and information on descriptions and re-descriptions, respectively. The setal
nomenclature system adopted was that of Lindquist and Evans (1965) and Lindquist (1994) as
adapted by Rowell et al. (1978) and Chant and Yoshida-Shaul (1992) for the dorsum and by
Chant and Yoshida-Shaul (1991) for the venter. Pore (= solenostome) and poroid (= lyrifissure)
notations are that of Athias-Henriot (1975). Macrosetal notation (Sge = genual macroseta; Sti
Kreiter S. and Ferragut F. (2021), Acarologia 61(3): 747-757. https://doi.org/10.24349/tyea-u51Q
748
= tibial macroseta; St = tarsal macroseta) are that of Muma and Denmark (1970). Numbers of
teeth on the fixed and movable cheliceral digits do not include the respective apical teeth. Setae
not referred to in results section should be considered as absent. All measurements are given
in micrometres (µm) and presented with the mean in bold followed by the range in parenthesis.
Classification of plants follows the APG IV classification of 2016 (ex. Byng et al. 2018).
Specimens of each species are deposited in the mite collections of Montpellier SupAgro
conserved in UMR CBGP INRA/IRD/CIRAD/IA-SupAgro/University of Montpellier.
The following abbreviations are used in Tables 1 and 2 for morphological characters: dsl =
dorsal shield length just anteriad of j1 to just posteriad of J5 in the middle line; Dsw (s4 level)
= dorsal shield width at setae s4 level; Perit. Reaching: peritreme reaching the level of; gd:
number of solenostomes; PP-DS fusion at. = Level of the fusion between peritremal plate and
dorsal shield; DS gd: nature of solenostomes present on the dorsal shield; Z4 ser or not, Z5
ser. or not = Z4, Z5 serrated or not serrated; gensl = genital shield length; gensw post. cor.
= genital shield width posteriorly; lisl = Largest inguinal sigilla (= “metapodal plate″) length;
lisw = Largest inguinal sigilla (= “metapodal plate″) width; sisl = smallest inguinal sigilla (=
“metapodal plate″) length; sisw = smallest inguinal sigilla (= “metapodal plate″) width; vsl
= ventrianal shield length; gv3 - gv3 = distance between solenostomes gv3 on the ventrianal
shield; vsw ZV2 & vsw anus = ventrianal shield width at ZV2 level and at paranal setae level;
JV5 ser. or not = JV5 serrated or not; Shape of MS: shape of macrosetae; scl.: calyx length;
scw = calyx widest width; Fdl = fixed digit length; Mdl = movable digit length; Nb teeth Fd =
number of teeth on the fixed digit; Nb teeth Md = number of teeth on the movable digit; Shaft
= length of the shaft of spermatodactyl; toe = length of the toe, the branch of spermatodactyl;
BCA = Biological control agents; aasl = altitude above sea level; imm.: immature.
The following abbreviations are used in this paper for institutions: CBGP = Centre de
Biologie pour la Gestion des Populations; CIRAD = Centre International de Recherche
Agronomique pour le Développement; IA = Institut Agro; INRAE = Institut National de
Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement; IRD = Institut de Recherche
pour le Développement; MSA = Montpellier SupAgro, France; UMR = Unité Mixte de
Recherche.
Results and discussion
Taxonomy, biological characteristics and biogeography
Tribe Typhlodromipsini Chant & McMurtry
Typhlodromipsini Chant & McMurtry 2005: 318.
Genus Scapulaseius Karg & Oomen-Kalsbeek
Scapulaseius Karg & Oomen-Kalsbeek 1987: 132; Chant & McMurtry 2005: 331, 2007: 65.
Scapulaseius asiaticus (Evans)
Typhlodromus asiaticus Evans 1953: 461.
Typhlodromus (Amblyseius) asiaticus, Chant 1959: 80.
Amblyseius (Typhlodromopsis) asiaticus, Muma 1961: 289.
Amblyseius (Amblyseius) asiaticus, Ehara 1966: 20; Ehara & Bhandhufalck 1977: 58.
Amblyseius asiaticus, Carmona 1968: 280; Gupta, 1975: 32.
Amblyseius (Neoseiulus) asiaticus, Ehara 2002: 127.
Typhlodromips asiaticus, Moraes et al. 1986: 137, 2004b: 207.
Scapulaseius asiaticus, Chant & McMurtry 2005: 335, 2007: 67.
Scapulaseius linearis Corpuz & Rimando 1966: 125 (synonymy according to Schicha &
Corpuz-Raros 1992).
Kreiter S. and Ferragut F. (2021), Acarologia 61(3): 747-757. https://doi.org/10.24349/tyea-u51Q
749
Scapulaseius siaki Ehara & Lee 1971: 64 (synonymy according to Ehara & Bhandhufalck
1977).
According to the genus concept by Chant and McMurtry (2005), this species belongs to the
asiaticus species group of the genus Scapulaseius as setae R1 are inserted on the lateral margin
of the dorsal shield of the adult female. The species group comprises 24 species. Species of
the genus Scapulaseius are supposed to belong to the life-type III (McMurtry and Croft 1997;
McMurtry et al. 2013), i.e. a polyphagous generalist predator. Evans (1953) has indicated that
the specimens collected were feeding in colonies of tetranychid mites. Despite these qualitative
observations on the group, the biology of S. asiaticus itself remains totally unknown. The
material examined had been collected in Java Island, Indonesia (Evans 1953), in Mauritius
Island (Kreiter and Abo-Shnaf 2020b; Ferragut and Baumann 2019) and in Vietnam (Kreiter et
al. 2020b).
World distribution Angola, China, Cyprus, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Malaysia,
Mauritius Island, Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Vietnam.
Specimens examined 33 ♀♀, 6 ♂♂ and 2 imm. in total. INDONESIA (3 ♀♀ and 1
♂): Bogor (Java) (aasl 265 m on average, 6°21′36″ S, 106°28′48″ E), 1 ♀ (holotype, slide n°
1952-10-10.1), 1 ♂ (paratype male, slide n°1952-10-10-2) and 1 ♀ (paratype, slide n° 195210-10.3) on Gossypium hirsutum L. (Malvaceae), XI/1951; MALAYSIA: Kuala Lumpur
(aasl 66 m on average, 101°41′36″ E, 3°8′27″ N), 1 ♀ (paratype, slide n° 1952-10-10.4) on an
unknown host plant (collected by A. Newsam), 1952; MAURITIUS (23 ♀♀ and 5 ♂♂): Côte
d’Or, Village (aasl 443 m, 57°32′21″ E, 20°15′26″ S), 2 ♀♀ on Clibadium surinamense L.
(Asteraceae), 28/X/2018; Curepipe, Trou aux cerfs (aasl 593 m, 57°30′47″ E, 20°19′04″ S), 1
♀ on Rubus apetalus Poiret (Rosaceae), 29/X/2018; Mare aux Vacoas (aasl 572 m, 57°29′59″
E, 20°21′40″ S), 11 ♀♀ on Tibouchina heteromalla Cogniaux (Melastomataceae) and 2 ♀♀
on Litsea monopetala (Roxburgh) Person (Lauraceae), 30/X/2018; Quartier Militaire (aasl
472 m, 57°36′05″ E, 20°19′11″ S), 1 ♀ on Clidemia hirta (L.) D. Don (Melastomataceae),
1/XI/2018; Curepipe, Bld Pasteur (aasl 510 m, 57°31′45″ E, 20°19′21″ S), 1 ♀ on Ageratum
conyzoides L. (Asteraceae), 4/XI/2018; Curepipe, Anderson street (aasl 560 m, 57°31′52″ E,
20°19′11″ S), 5 ♀♀ and 3 ♂♂ on Erigeron canadensis (L.) Cronquist (Asteraceae) and 3 ♀♀
and 2 ♂♂ on Sonchus oleraceus L. (Asteraceae), 4/XI/2018; Mare aux Vacoas (aasl 581 m,
57°29′31″ E, 20°22′05″ S), 1 ♀ on Ludwigia octovalvis (Jacquemin) P.H.Raven (Onagraceae),
5/XI/2018; VIETNAM (7 ♀♀ and 2 imm.): Ma, in P1 plot (aasl 63 m, 105°1′28″ E, 21°45′53″
N), 1 ♀ on Chromolaena odorata (L.) King and Robinson (Asteraceae), 9/V/2017; Muoi, in P7
plot (aasl 66 m, 104°38′22″ E, 21°54′51″ N), 1 ♀ on Crassocephalum crepidioides (Bentham)
Moore (Asteraceae), 16/V/2017; in P9 plot (aasl 66 m, 104°38′18″ E, 21°54′46″ N), 1 ♀ on an
unknown plant support, 18/V/2017; in P11 plot (aasl 66 m, 104°38′14″ E, 21°54′30″ N), 1 imm.
on C. odorata (Asteraceae), 31/V/2017; in P15 plot (aasl 66 m, 104°38′46″ E, 21°54′56″ N), 1
♀ on C. odorata (Asteraceae), 31/V/2017; in P8 plot (aasl 66 m, 104°38′9″ E, 21°54′46″ N), 2
♀♀ and 1 imm. on Xanthium strumarium L. (Asteraceae), 2/VI/2017; in P13 plot (aasl 66 m,
104°38′46″ E, 21°54′50″ N), 1 ♀ on X. strumarium (Asteraceae), 29/VII/2017.
Scapulaseius reptans (Blommers)
Amblyseius (Amblyseius) reptans Blommers 1974: 145.
Typhlodromips reptans, Moraes et al. 1986: 146; Moraes et al. 2004b: 222.
Scapulaseius reptans, Chant & McMurtry 2005: 335; Chant & McMurtry 2007: 68.
Scapulaseius reptans appears to belong to the ficilocus species group of the genus Scapulaseius as the setae R1 are inserted on lateral integument of adult female and not on dorsal shield
(Chant and McMurtry 2005). This species group contains 40 species.
This species is mentioned only from the Indian Ocean area, Madagascar (Blommers 1974),
La Réunion (Quilici et al. 2000) and recently Mauritius (Kreiter et al. 2018a). Species of this
genus Scapulaseius are supposed to be of type III (McMurtry and Croft 1997; McMurtry et
Kreiter S. and Ferragut F. (2021), Acarologia 61(3): 747-757. https://doi.org/10.24349/tyea-u51Q
750
al. 2013), i.e. polyphagous generalist predators. However, the biology of S. reptans remains
unknown.
World distribution La Réunion Island, Madagascar, Mauritius Island.
Specimens examined 26 ♀♀ and 9 ♂♂ in total. LA RÉUNION ISLAND (2 ♀♀, 1 ♂ and
1 imm.): Ravine Langevin, Grand-Galet Waterfall (aasl 850 m, 55°21′33″ E, 21°17′47″ S),
1 ♀ and 1 ♂ on Desmodium incanum De Candolle (Fabaceae), 11/12/2016; Petite Île, Piton
Bloc, Yébo Luguy farm (aasl 973 m, 55°34′64″ E, 21°18′64″ S), 1 ♀ and 1 imm. on Lantana
camara L. (Verbenaceae), 9/1/2017. MADAGASCAR (22 ♀♀ and 7 ♂♂): Tamatave city, 1 ♀
(holotype), 4 ♀♀ and 3 ♂♂ (paratypes), and 8 ♀♀ and 4 ♂♂ (additional material) on Psidium
guajava L. (Myrtaceae), 28/VII/1972; Tamatave Ivoloina, 3 ♀♀ (additional material) on
Rubus sp., 25/VII/1972, 1 ♀ (additional material) on Pueraria phaseoloides (= javanica)
(Roxburgh) Bentham (Fabaceae), 1/VIII/1972; 3 ♀♀ (additional material) on Passiflora
foetida L. (Passifloraceae), 5/VII/1972 (2 ♀♀) and 24/VII/1972 (1 ♀), 2 ♀♀ (additional
material) on Phaseolus lunatus L. (Fabaceae), 11/II/1972. MAURITIUS ISLAND (2 ♀♀ and
1 ♂): Chamouny (aasl 128 m, 57°27′58.00″ E, 20°28′55.99″ S), 2 ♀♀ and 1 ♂ on an unknown
host plant, 21/IX/2017.
Discussion on the possible synonymy
Scapulaseius asiaticus was described by Evans (1953) under the name Typhlodromus asiaticus
from specimens collected in Java Island, Indonesia, on cotton Gossypium hirsutum L. (Malvaceae) as indicated on slides of the type material. One female was added from Malaysia,
Kwala Lumpur, to this type material (Evans 1953).
The closely related Scapulaseius reptans (Blommers) was described by Blommers in 1974
from Tamatave (Madagascar) under the name Amblyseius (Amblyseius) reptans from specimens
collected on Psidium guajava L. (Myrtaceae).
Examination of specimens previously collected
Overall character measurements of females (Table 1) and males (Table 2) collected in various
locations (by senior author) are compatible between populations, irrespective of whether they
were previously identified as S. asiatcius or S. reptans. Consequently, the morphometrics
strongly suggest synonymy.
There are however some discrepancies between our observations and previous descriptions
of the two species. In the two descriptions, it is said that:
• dorsal shield is reticulated in the description of S. reptans in the anterior lateral margins
and on all the posterior part of the dorsal shield except the central area. Reticulations
were not included in the original description of S. asiaticus by Evans (1953), but were
illustrated by Ehara and Bhandhulfalck (1977) and by Ferragut and Baumann (2019, using
a photograph, their plate 1D);
• Ehara and Bhandhulfalck (1977) pointed out that seta R1 is inserted on a lateral projection
of the dorsal shield, a feature that Ferragut and Baumann (2019) disagreed on. Scapulaseius reptans is morphologically very close to S. asiaticus, but with setae R1 indicated by
the author as located off the dorsal shield in the description (Blommers 1974). Taking this
trait into consideration as an apomorphic character, Chant and McMurtry (2005) placed
the two species within different groups, S. asiaticus in the asiaticus species group characterized by having R1 on the dorsal shield and S. reptans in the ficilocus species group
with species bearing R1 on the lateral integument. However, in S. asiaticus the position
of this seta is variable even among individuals of the same population. Ehara and Bhandhufalck (1977) were the first to mention this variability. Ferragut and Baumann (2019)
examined 19 females from Mauritius with the following results: eleven females (58%)
had both R1 setae on the dorsal shield, four females (26%) had one setae of the pair on
Kreiter S. and Ferragut F. (2021), Acarologia 61(3): 747-757. https://doi.org/10.24349/tyea-u51Q
751
a lateral projection of the shield and the other on the soft integument, and three females
(16%) had both setae R1 on the lateral integument. Although the majority of specimens
have both or one seta on the dorsal shield, 16%, having both R1 on the soft integument,
is not a negligible proportion;
• A peculiar trait in S. asiaticus not mentioned by previous authors and especially by Blom-
Table 1 Previously published adult females character measurements of Scapulaseius asiaticus and S. reptans compared to character measurements of adult female types and additional material of both species (localities in alphabetic order followed by the number of specimens measured
between brackets).
Scapulaseius asiaticus (Evans)
Scapulaseius reptans (Blommers)
Dsl
309 (305–313)
319 (308–338)
311 (304–315)
310 (293–325)
287
330
301 (283–318)
306 (293–313)
321 (308–335)
Madagascar (22)
Holotype, 4
paratypes & 17
addit. mat.
310 (275–333)
Dsw (s4 level)
193 (188–198)
184 (173–200)
191 (182–199)
174 (145–205)
182
230
200 (181–222)
179 (170–188)
210 (198–223)
187 (163–203)
Perit. reaching
j1
j1
j1
j1
–
–
–
j1
j1
j1
j1
PP-DS fusion at.
–
j3
j3
j3
–
–
–
j3
j3
j3
j3
DS gd
1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9
1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9
1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9
1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9
-
-
-
1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9
1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9
1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9
1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9
j1
21 (19–24)
22 (20–24)
22 (20–24)
23 (18–25)
19
20
21 (19–23)
21 (18–23)
23 (20–25)
22 (20–23)
23
j3
19 (17–21)
15
17 (15–20)
22 (20–23)
13
18
15 (10–16)
14 (13–15)
25
20 (15–25)
20–23
j4
10 (8–11)
9 (8–10)
5
8 (8–9)
8
7
8 (7–10)
8
10
9 (8–12)
8
j5
10 (8–11)
8 (8–9)
5
8 (8–9)
8
7
8 (6–10)
8 (6–8)
9 (8–10)
9 (8–11)
8
j6
13 (11–14)
11 (10–13)
8 (7–9)
11 (9–13)
9
8
10 (9–12)
9 (8–10)
13 (13–13)
11 (9–13)
10
J2
12 (11–13)
12 (10–13)
9 (7–9)
13 (10–15)
9
9
11 (10–12)
9 (8–10)
13 (13–13)
12 (10–14)
8–9
J5
8 (8–9)
8
8 (7–8)
8 (8–10)
6
6
8 (7–8)
8 (8–9)
9 (8–10)
8 (8–9)
8
r3
15 (15–16)
16 (15–16)
14 (13–14)
19 (18–20)
12
14
13 (11–15)
13 (13–15)
23 (18–28)
16 (15–18)
18
R1
12 (10–13)
12 (11–12)
11 (10–12)
13 (11–15)
14
16
16 (14–17)
10 (9–13)
14 (13–15)
11 (9–13)
13
s4
25 (20–30)
21 (19–25)
23 (22–25)
27 (25–31)
17
21
21 (18–23)
18 (16–20)
33
27 (23–33)
28
S2
18 (17–19)
16 (15–18)
18 (15–20)
22 (19–26)
13
15
16 (13–18)
15 (13–18)
24 (23–25)
20 (16–25)
22–25
S4
16 (16–17)
14 (13–15)
15 (13–17)
19 (16–20)
12
13
14 (11–15)
12 (10–13)
20
18 (14–22)
18–23
S5
15 (14–16)
14 (14–15)
14 (13–15)
17 (15–20)
11
13
14 (12–19)
13 (10–15)
20 (18–23)
16 (13–21)
18–20
z2
17 (15–18)
14 (14–15)
15 (13–16)
18 (15–20)
11
13
14 (13–15)
12 (10–15)
21 (20–23)
19 (15–23)
18–20
z4
19 (18–20)
17 (15–18)
18 (16–19)
20 (18–23)
11
11
11 (7–13)
13 (10–15)
25 (25–25)
19 (15–28)
23
z5
11 (10–12)
9 (9–10)
7 (6–9)
10 (8–12)
7
9
9 (8–11)
8 (7–10)
10
9 (8–10)
8
Z1
11 (9–12)
10
9 (8–9)
12 (9–13)
–
11
11 (10–12)
10 (7–13)
13
11 (9–13)
10
Characters
India (10)
IndonesiaMalaysia (3) Holo& Paratypes
Mauritius 1 (9)
Mauritius 2 (12)
Sri Lanka Thailand
(1)
1 (1?)
Thailand 2 (8)
Vietnam (7)
La Réunion Island
(2)
Mauritius (2)
303–305
185–188
Z4 ser. or not
49 (47–52) ser.
52 (45–56) ser.
47 (44–52) ser.
54 (49–58) ser.
45
51
52 (49–58)
50 (47–55) ser.
61 (60–63) ser.
51 (46–59) ser.
56–63 ser.
Z5 ser. or not
76 (73–79), ser.
77 (75–79), ser.
73 (65–77), ser.
77 (74–84), ser.
68
73
74 (70–83)
77 (75–80) ser.
79 (75 – 83) ser.
75 (73–80) ser.
72–75 ser.
st1 –st1
–
49 (48–50)
–
51 (48–53)
–
–
–
50 (48–50)
50
48 (46–50)
50
st2 –st2
60 (59–61)
57 (55–60)
59 (55–63)
52
–
59 (57–61)
58 (55–60)
60 (58–63)
60 (55–65)
60
65 (65–66)
–
64 (58–70)
–
–
–
61 (55–65)
66 (63–70)
61 (58–63)
65
st1 –st3
60 (60–61)
61 (60–62)
56 (56–57)
58 (55–59)
53 (52–54)
55 (53–56)
48
–
54 (50 – 58)
53 (50–55)
56 (55–58)
52 (50–58)
53–56
st4 –st4
–
68 (63–73)
–
60 (50–70)
–
–
–
65 (56–83)
79 (73–85)
64 (60–70)
65–78
Gensl
–
117 (108–125)
98 (96–101)
112 (100–125)
–
–
–
101 (90–113)
105–108
105 (98–115)
100–105
st5 –st5
57 (57–58)
60 (54–63)
61 (55–65)
60 (55–64)
54
–
61 (58–64)
59 (55–63)
61 (60–63)
61 (53–69)
60
Gensw post. corn.
–
72 (68–75)
71 (60–74)
78 (60–83)
–
–
–
69 (65–80)
70–78
73 (68–81)
78
18–23
st3 –st3
Lisl
19 (18–20)
17 (14–19)
–
18 (15–20)
–
–
–
16 (13–18)
20 (18–23)
18 (20–22)
Lisw
12 (12–13)
5 (4–5)
–
3 (2–4)
–
–
–
3 (2–5)
5
5
4–5
Sisl
–
11 (10–12)
–
10 (8–13)
–
–
–
10
11 (10–13)
12 (10–15)
10–13
Sisw
–
2 (1–3)
–
2 (1–3)
–
–
–
2 (1–2)
2 (1–2)
2 (2–3)
2
Vsl
102 (100–103)
116 (105–125)
99 (95–101)
103 (93–115)
97
–
103 (97–110)
102 (95–110)
115 (115–115)
105 (98–110)
98–100
Vsw ZV2
78 (78–79)
86 (84–88)
81 (77–84)
85 (78–90)
79
–
84 (80–87)
82 (78–90)
81 (78–85)
85 (80–91)
85–87
Vsw anus
66 (65–67)
71 (68–73)
67 (61–74)
70 (60–74)
65
–
–
64 (50–73)
75 (75–75)
68 (64–74)
68–70
gv3–gv3
–
20 (18–21)
20 (16–23)
20 (19–23)
–
–
–
22 (19–25)
20–21
21 (20–22)
20–21
JV5 ser. or not
27 (25–30) not
25 (20–30) not
26 (22–28) not
30 (28–35) not
–
19
–
23 (20–25) not
34 (33–35) not
28 (20–33) not
28 not
SgeI
–
18 (15–20)
18 (16–19)
25 (20–30)
–
–
17 (15–20)
16 (15– 20)
24 (23–25)
21 (18–27)
23
SgeII
–
12 (10–13)
12 (10–13)
17 (13–20)
–
–
11 (8–13)
12 (10–15)
15
13 (11–16)
13–15
SgeIII
–
17 (16–18)
15 (13–17)
17 (13–25)
14
–
17 (15–18)
17 (15–19)
19 (18–20)
17 (15–20)
18
StiIII
–
17 (15–18)
–
17 (13–23)
15
–
–
15 (13–18)
18 (15–20)
17 (15–18)
18
SgeIV
29 (27–31)
28 (25–30)
26 (24–29)
29 (25–33)
22
27
27 (24–30)
28 (25–30)
31 (30–33)
28 (23–35)
28
StiIV
23 (19–26)
22 (20–24)
20 (18–23)
24 (22–25)
18
22
22 (18–26)
22 (20–24)
28 (28–28)
22 (19–25)
23–25
StIV
49 (47–51)
52 (48–55)
49 (44–53)
53 (48 – 58)
45
50
49 (44–52)
50 (48–50)
59 (55–63)
52 (47–60)
50–53
Shape of MS
Pointed
Thick, knobbed tips
Thick, knobbed tips
Thick, knobbed tips
–
–
–
Thick, knobbed tips
Thick, knobbed tips
Thick, knobbed tips
Thick, knobbed tips
30–35
Scl
–
32 (23–40)
33 (29–34)
28 (25–33)
27
-
35 (29–40)
30 (28–35)
30
39 (33–45)
Scw
–
13 (11–14)
–
12 (8–15)
–
–
–
11 (8–18)
10
15 (13–17)
2
Fdl, No teeth
24 (24–25), 11
28 (27–28), 9
26 (24–27), 9
24 (23–25), 9
–
–
22 (21–23)
25 (23–28), 9
28 (25–30), 10
24 (20–26), 9
25, 9
Mdl, No teeth
26 (26–27), 3
26 (26–27), 3
27 (25–29), 2–3
25 (23–28), 3
–
–
25 (23–25)
25 (23–28), 3
23 (20–25), 3
26 (25–28), 3
25, 3
Sources of measurements:
Scapulaseius asiaticus – Original description Indonesia: Evans (1953) but measured in this study by the senior author; Mauritius 1: Ferragut & Baumann (2019); Mauritius 2: Kreiter & Abo-Shnaf (2020b); Sri Lanka: Moraes et al . (2004a); Thailand 1: Ehara &
Bhandhufalck (1977); Thailand 2: Oliveira et al. (2012); Vietnam: Kreiter et al. (2020b);
Scapulaseius reptans – La Réunion Island: Kreiter et al. (2020c); Original description Madagascar: Blommers (1974) but measured in this study by the senior author; Mauritius: Kreiter et al. (2018a).
– : not provided.
Kreiter S. and Ferragut F. (2021), Acarologia 61(3): 747-757. https://doi.org/10.24349/tyea-u51Q
752
mers (1974) for S. reptans is the position of the dorsal solenostome gd3. Ferragut and
Baumann (2019) stated that while in females of the family Phytoseiidae, this solenos-
Table 2 Previously published adult male character measurements of Scapulaseius asiaticus and S. reptans compared to character measurements
of adult male paratypes and additional material of both species (localities in alphabetic order followed by the number of specimens measured
between brackets).
Scapulaseius asiaticus (Evans)
Characters
India (6)
Indonesia (1)
Mauritius (5)
Scapulaseius reptans (Blommers)
Thailand 1 (?)
Thailand 2 (1) La Réunion Island (1)
Madagascar (6) 3
paratypes & 4
additional mat.
Mauritius (1)
Paratype
Dsl
277 (275–280)
240
250 (245–258)
240
237
250
245 (240–250)
255
Dsw (s4 level)
184 (183–185)
185
137 (133–143)
160
175
150
178 (169–200)
175
Perit. reaching
j1
j1
j1
j1
j1
j1
PP-DS fusion at.
–
J3
J3
J3
J3
J3
DS gd
gd 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9
gd 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9
gd 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9
gd 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9
gd 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9
gd 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9
j1
18 (16–20)
19
20 (18–22)
17
17
15
20 (19–21)
18
j3
25 (25–26)
16
19 (18–20)
18
16
20
20 (15–23)
25
j4
8 (6–9)
9
8 (8–9)
7
7
10
7 (7–8)
10
j5
9 (8–10)
6
8
7
8
8
8 (7–9)
10
j6
10 (10–11)
8
9 (8–9)
8
8
10
9 (9 – 10)
10
J2
12 (10–14)
10
10 (10–11)
9
10
13
10 (9–10)
10
J5
7 (5–9)
7
7 (6–8)
6
7
5
8
6
r3
14 (13–15)
14
16 (15–18)
13
15
15
16 (14–20)
15
R1
10 (9–11)
10
13 (12–14)
12
10
13
13 (10–15)
13
s4
18 (16–20)
20
23 (20–26)
20
20
28
24 (20–28)
25
S2
11 (10–12)
15
20 (18–23)
15
15
20
20 (18–22)
10
S4
11 (10–12)
14
18 (14–20)
13
13
20
16 (15–18)
10
S5
8 (8–9)
13
16 (13–18)
12
12
18
16 (13–18)
9
z2
10 (8–12)
15
16 (15–18)
13
13
23
17 (15–20)
13
z4
13 (12–14)
15
19 (18–19)
16
15
20
19 (15–22)
13
z5
8 (6–10)
6
8 (7–9)
8
9
8
8
10
Z1
12 (12–13)
9
10 (9–10)
10
10
10
10 (9–11)
13
Z4 ser.
33 (30–35)
30 ser.
38 (35–40)
34
35
40
36 (33–39)
33
Z5 ser.
55 (53–57)
45 ser.
54 (53–55)
47
50
58
53 (45–56)
50
st1-st1
–
45
44 (43–45)
–
–
30
42 (34–45)
47
st2-st2
–
53
49 (48–50)
–
–
53
49 (43–53)
53
st3-st3
–
51
47 (43–48)
–
–
50
46 (44–49)
55
st1-st5
–
101
101 (100–103)
–
–
78
99 (95–103)
105
st4-st4
–
38
35 (30–38)
–
–
38
36 (35–38)
40
st5-st5
–
30
32 (30–35)
–
–
38
32 (29–34)
35
Vsl
112 (110–113)
95
107 (100–113)
–
104
100
110 (105–115)
113
135
Vsw ZV2
112 (110–113)
135
113 (108–120)
–
140
133
138 (134–143)
Vsw anus
54 (53–55)
68
53 (48–60)
–
–
75
64 (54–68)
60
gv3 –gv3
–
16
20 (19–23)
–
–
17
15 (14–16)
18
20
JV5
–
18 not
19 (18–20) not
19
–
18
20 (16–23) not
SgeI
–
15
19 (18–20)
–
15
25
18 (16–23)
25
SgeII
–
10
13
–
8
15
12 (9–14)
20
SgeIII
–
20
StiIII
–
SgeIV
33 (30 – 35)
StiIV
27 (26 – 28)
StIV
16 (15–18)
–
12
18
13 (12–14)
25
17 (15–18)
–
–
–
13 (12–14)
20
20
21 (18–23)
19
21
25
22 (18–25)
35
18
20 (18–21)
17
19
23
19 (16–22)
20
40 (38 – 43)
39
45 (43–48)
44
42
45
47 (41–53)
48
Shape of MS
–
–
Thick, knobbed tips
–
–
Thick, knobbed tips
Thick, knobbed tips
Thick, knobbed tips
Fdl, No teeth Fd
–
20, 8
20 (18–20), 8
–
19
20, 8
21 (18–23), 8
20, 8
Mdl, No teeth Md
–
20, 1
20 (18–22), 1
1–
21
23, 1
21 (20–23), 1
23, 1
Shaft
15 (15 – 16)
14
16 (15–17)
–
14
15
14 (14–15)
17
Toe or branch
–
5
5
–
–
5
6 (5–7)
5
Sources of measurements:
Scapulaseius asiaticus – India: Karmakar & Bhowmik (2018); Original description Indonesia: Evans (1953) but measured in this study by the senior author; Mauritius: Kreiter & Abo-Shnaf (2020b); Thailand 1: Ehara &
Bhandhufalck (1977); Thailand 2: Oliveira et al. (2012);
Scapulaseius reptans – La Réunion: Kreiter et al. (2020c); Madagascar: Blommers (1974); Mauritius: Kreiter et al. (2018a).
– : not provided.
Kreiter S. and Ferragut F. (2021), Acarologia 61(3): 747-757. https://doi.org/10.24349/tyea-u51Q
753
tome is usually located on the peritremal plate, in S. asiaticus, it is on the soft lateral
integument, between the peritremal and dorsal shields, posterior to setae r3 and close to
the margin of dorsal shield.
Our examination of the material collected in Mauritius and Vietnam (Kreiter et al 2020b)
and identified as S. asiaticus and of the material collected in Mauritius (Kreiter et al. 2018a)
and in La Réunion (Kreiter et al. 2020c) and identified as S. reptans along with the original
descriptions of S. asiaticus and S. reptans shows that:
• Re-examination of our specimens from La Réunion (Kreiter et al. 2020c) and of Mauritius
(Kreiter et al. 2018a) point out that the dorsal shields of the two species present exactly
the same reticulation as drawn by Blommers (1974) for the description of S. reptans and
in Ehara and Bhandhulfalck (1977) for the redescription of S. asiaticus;
• In our 27 specimens females of Mauritius (Kreiter and Abo-Shnaf 2020b), we have 21
females out of 27 (77.8%) with R1 on the dorsal shield, four females / 27 (14.8%) with
one of these setae on and the other one off shield and two females / 27 (7.4%) with setae
R1 both off shield, compared to above mentioned data of Ferragut and Baumann (2019),
respectively. In specimens from Vietnam (Kreiter et al. 2020b), we had four females
out of seven (57.1%) with R1 on the dorsal shield, only one female / seven (14.3%) with
one of these setae on and the other one off shield and two females / seven (28.6%) with
setae R1 both off shield. In the two specimens from Mauritius (Kreiter et al. 2018a),
both specimens have R1 on the dorsal shield, and in the two female specimens from La
Réunion (Kreiter et al. 2020c), one specimen has both R1 on the dorsal shield, but the
other specimens have one seta on and the other one off the dorsal shield.
• solenostomes gd3 are on integument in all our specimens from Mauritius (this study),
from Vietnam (Kreiter et al. 2020b), but also on those from Mauritius (Kreiter et al.
2018a) and La Réunion (Kreiter et al. 2020c) previously identified as S. reptans.
Despite the confinement during the Covid-19 pandemic (2020-2021), as we were strongly
suspecting that S. reptans is a junior synonym of S. asiaticus, just like Ferragut and Baumann
(2019) did, we have however managed to borrow type material (and in case of S. reptans some
additional material) of both species in 2021.
Examination of type material from both species
Results of the study of the type material of both sexes of both species (Tables 1 and 2) indicate
that:
(1) Examination of respective female specimens belonging to S. asiaticus and S. reptans
shows very little differences in character measurements: j3, z2, s4, S2, S4 and S5 are
slightly longer in S. reptans and genital and ventrianal shields longer in S. asiaticus but
these details have to be taken cautiously as we have only three specimens of S. asiaticus vs. 22 specimens of S. reptans. The dorsal shields of specimens of the two species
present exactly the same reticulation as drawn by Blommers (1974) for the description of
S. reptans and in Ehara and Bhandhulfalck (1977) for the redescription of S. asiaticus;
(2) Examination of respective male specimens belonging to S. asiaticus and S. reptans shows
also very little differences in character measurements: the same setae than female, j3, z2,
s4, S2, S4 and S5 with in addition Z4, Z5, StIV and the length of ventrianal shield are
slightly longer in S. reptans. But these details have also to be taken very carefully as we
have only one paratype specimen of S. asiaticus vs. 7 specimens of S. reptans;
(3) Examination of respective female and male specimens belonging to both species shows
only very little differences with specimens previously collected and identified as one of
the two species (Tables 1 and 2);
Kreiter S. and Ferragut F. (2021), Acarologia 61(3): 747-757. https://doi.org/10.24349/tyea-u51Q
754
(4) While type specimen females of S. asiaticus have setae R1 on the dorsal shield, in type
specimen females of S. reptans, we have 11 females out of 22 (50%) with R1 on the dorsal
shield, six females / 22 (27%) with one of these setae on and the other one off shield and
five females / 22 (20%) with setae R1 both off shield, compared to 58, 26 and 16% for
Mauritius specimens (Ferragut and Baumann 2019), to 77.8%, 14.8% and 7.4% for other
Mauritius specimens (Kreiter and Abo-Shnaf 2020b), and to 57.1%, 14.3%, and 28.6%
for Vietnam specimens (Kreiter et al. 2020), respectively. In the two specimens from
Mauritius (Kreiter et al. 2018a), both specimens have R1 on the dorsal shield. And in the
two female specimens from La Réunion (Kreiter et al. 2020c), one specimen has both R1
on the dorsal shield, but the other specimens have one seta on and the other one off the
dorsal shield.
(5) Solenostomes gd3 are on integument in all specimens of S. asiaticus and all specimens of
S. reptans;
(6) Except for specimens from India and La Réunion (Table 1), specimens of both species
have the same number of teeth and the same shape of terminal tips of macrosetae;
(7) A double-blind identification by one of us with all label hidden conducted to exactly half
S. asiaticus and half S. reptans using all available type and collected specimens.
Conclusion on the synonymy
Given this variability in S. asiaticus and S. reptans, we agree with Ferragut and Baumann
(2019) that S. reptans represent a junior synonym of S. asiaticus. The holotype of S. reptans
has setae R1 on the dorsal shield, whereas many type specimens and additional specimens have
setae R1 on or off the shield, or both (asymetry) as indicated before. This character is thus quite
variable, even if the majority (> 50%) of specimens of both described taxa have setae R1 on the
dorsal shield.
Setal measurements and other morphological features of the specimens collected from
Indonesia, Malaysia, Madagascar, La Réunion Island, Mauritius and Vietnam agree well with
both, with those of the original description and subsequent redescriptions of S. asiaticus by
Ehara and Bhandhufalck (1977), Moraes et al. (2004a), Oliveira et al. (2012), Karmakar and
Bhowmik (2018) and Ferragut and Baumann (2019); as well as with the morphological data
provided in the original description and the redescriptions of S. reptans given by Kreiter et al.
(2018a, 2020c).
Considering all this information and new examination of type and additional material, we
can conclude that our specimens from Mauritius (Kreiter et al. 2018a, Kreiter and Abo-Shnaf
2020b) and from La Réunion (Kreiter et al. 2020c) must be all named S. asiaticus. Previous
specimens collected in La Réunion Island (Kreiter et al. 2020d) and in Mauritius Island (Kreiter
et al. 2018a, Kreiter and Abo-Shnaf 2020b) and previously identified as S. reptans are thus
consequently belonging all to the unique valid species, S. asiaticus.
The logical outcome of our findings is that the division of the genus Scapulaseius into two
species groups based on the position of setae R1 (on vs off the shield) is not supported. We have
only examined two of the species in the genus, but our observations reveal a wide variability in
the placement of R1, which is evident in a reduced number of individuals and even on the same
specimen. This variability does not seem to be local or restricted to a part of the geographical
range of the species. Instead, we have observed the three possible patterns (R1 on the dorsal
shield, R1 off the shield, one member of the pair on and the other one off the shield) on females
collected in the extremes of the geographical area of distribution, Mauritius Island and Vietnam,
and in the type series of S. reptans collected by Blommers in Eastern Madagascar.
Furthermore, in those females with R1 on the shield, the insertion of these setae is marginal
and small deviations in the development of the dorsal shield may lead indistinctly to one of the
three patterns observed or, as Chant and McMurtry (2005) mentioned for other Scapulaseius
species, to the setal placement on a lateral projection of the dorsal shield.
Kreiter S. and Ferragut F. (2021), Acarologia 61(3): 747-757. https://doi.org/10.24349/tyea-u51Q
755
Acknowledgements
Acknowledgements are first due to the Department to which the senior author belongs for his
research activities that have funded this work for travels and accommodations in Mauritius:
UMR CBGP (Internal call for proposals 2018). I would like to warmly thank the National
History Museum (NHM), Department of Life Sciences (Entomology), Cromwell Road, London
SW7 5BD, United Kingdom and especially Dr Anne Baker for the loan of the type material of
Scapulaseius asiaticus; and the Naturalis Biodiversity Center, Darwinweg 2, 2333 CR Leiden,
The Netherlands, especially Wendy van Bohemen for the loan of the type and the additional
materials of Scapulaseius reptans. Many thanks to Mrs Marie Anne Edouard for hosting me
and to his son for helping me with car problems. I am very grateful to Mrs Claudia Baider,
responsible for the Mauritius Herbarium, who has identified some plants and advice on Island
locations and Mauritius biodiversity. I would like to thank National Authorities of Mauritius
for the signature of a Memorandum of agreement for the supply of biological material by
the Government of Mauritius and a Phytosanitary certificate. I must also thank Le Vélo Vert
Association, especially Mrs Géraldine d’Unienville for e-mail exchanges and advices.
References
Athias-Henriot C. 1975. Nouvelles notes sur les Amblyseiini. II. Le relevé organotaxique de la face
dorsale adulte (Gamasides protoadéniques, Phytoseiidae). Acarologia, 17(1): 20-29.
Byng J.W., Smets E.F., van Vugt R., Bidault E., Davidson C., Kenicer G., Chase M.W., Christenhusz
M.J.M. 2018. The phylogeny of angiosperms poster: a visual summary of APG IV family relationships
and floral diversity. The Global Flora, 4-7.
Carmona M.M. 1968. Contribuicao para o estudo de alguns acaros fitofagos e depredadores, de Angola.
Agron. Lusit., 29: 267-288 + 12 plates.
Chant D.A. 1959. Phytoseiid mites (Acarina: Phytoseiidae). Part I. Bionomics of seven species in
southeastern England. Part II. A taxonomic review of the family Phytoseiidae, with descriptions of
thirty-eight new species. Can. Entomol., 61(12): 1-166. https://doi.org/10.4039/entm9112fv
Chant D.A., McMurtry J.A. 1994. A review of the subfamilies Phytoseiinae and Typhlodrominae (Acari:
Phytoseiidae). Intern. J. Acarol., 20(4): 223-310. https://doi.org/10.1080/01647959408684022
Chant D.A., McMurtry J.A. 2005. A review of the subfamily Amblyseiinae Muma (Acari: Phytoseiidae)
Part VII. Typhlodromipsini n. tribe. Intern. J. Acarol., 31(4): 315-340. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01647950508683673
Chant D.A., McMurtry J.A. 2007. Illustrated keys and diagnoses for the genera and subgenera of the
Phytoseiidae of the world (Acari: Mesostigmata). Indira Publishing House, West Bloomfield, 219 pp.
Chant D.A., Yoshida-Shaul E. 1991. Adult ventral setal patterns in the family Phytoseiidae (Acari:
Gamasina). Intern. J. Acarol., 17(3): 187-199. https://doi.org/10.1080/01647959108683906
Chant D.A., Yoshida-Shaul E. 1992. Adult idiosomal setal patterns in the family Phytoseiidae (Acari:
Gamasina). Intern. J. Acarol., 18(3): 177-193. https://doi.org/10.1080/01647959208683949
Corpuz L.A., Rimando L. 1966. Some Philippine Amblyseiinae (Phytoseiidae: Acarina). Philip. Agric.,
50: 114-136.
Demite P.R., Moraes G.J. de, McMurtry J.A., Denmark H.A., Castilho R.C. 2021. Phytoseiidae Database.
Available from: www.lea.esalq.usp.br/phytoseiidae (last access 30/VI/2020).
Demite P.R., McMurtry J.A., Moraes G.J. de. 2014. Phytoseiidae Database: a website for taxonomic
and distributional information on phytoseiid mites (Acari). Zootaxa, 3795 (5): 571-577. https:
//doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3795.5.6
Denmark H.A., Evans G.A. 2011. Phytoseiidae of North America and Hawaii (Acari: Mesostigmata).
Indira Publishing House, West Bloomfield, USA, 451 pp.
Ehara S. 1966. A tentative catalogue of predatory mites of Phytoseiidae known from Asia, with
descriptions of five new species from Japan. Mushi, 39: 9-30.
Ehara S. 2002. Some phytoseiid mites (Arachnida: Acari: Phytoseiidae) from west Malaysia. Species
Div., 7: 29-46. https://doi.org/10.12782/specdiv.7.29
Ehara S., Bhandhufalck A. 1977. Phytoseiid mites of Thailand (Acarina: Mesotigmata). J. Fac. Educ.
Tottori University, Nat. Sc., 27(2): 43-82.
Ehara S., Lee L.H.Y. 1971. Mites associated with plants in Hong Kong. J. Fac. Educ., Tottori Univ.,
Natur. Sci., 22(2): 61-78.
Evans G.O. 1953. On some mites of the genus Typhlodromus Scheuten, 1857, from S. E. Asia. Ann. Mag.
Nat. Hist., 6: 449-467. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222935308654444
Ferragut F., Baumann J. 2019. New phytoseiid mites (Mesostigmata: Phytoseiidae) of Mauritius, with the
description of two new species. Syst. Appl. Acarol., 24(5): 825-856. https://doi.org/10.11158/saa.24.5.8
Gupta S.K. 1975. Mites of the genus Amblyseius (Acarina: Phytoseiidae) from India with descriptions of
eight new species. Intern. J. Acarol., 1(2): 26-45. https://doi.org/10.1080/01647957508683746
Karg W., Oomen-Kalsbeek F. 1987. Neue Raubmilbenarten der Gattung Amblyseius Berlese (Acarina,
Parasitiformes, Phytoseiidae) Antagonisten der unechten Spinnmilbe Brevipalpus phoenicis Geijskes.
Zool. Jahrb. Syst., 114(1): 131-140.
Kreiter S. and Ferragut F. (2021), Acarologia 61(3): 747-757. https://doi.org/10.24349/tyea-u51Q
756
Karmakar K., Bhowmik S. 2018. Description of eight new species and of four species belonging to
the family Phytoseiidae (Acari: Mesostigmata) from West Bengal, India. Zootaxa, 4422(1), 41-77.
https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4422.1.3
Knapp M., Van Houten Y., Van Baal E., Groot T. 2018. Use of predatory mites in commercial biocontrol:
current status and future prospects. Acarologia, 58 (Suppl):72-82. https://doi.org/10.24349/acarologia/
20184275
Kreiter S., Abo-Shnaf R.I.A. 2020a. Phytoseiid mites of Rodrigues Island. Acarologia, 60(2): 449-468.
https://doi.org/10.24349/acarologia/20204376
Kreiter S., Abo-Shnaf R.I.A. 2020b. New records of phytoseiid mites from Mauritius Island (Acari:
Mesostigmata). Acarologia 60(3): 520-545. https://doi.org/10.24349/acarologia/20204382
Kreiter S., Abo-Shnaf R.I.A., Payet R.-M. 2020a. Phytoseiid mites of Mayotte Island (Acari: Mesostigmata). Acarologia, 60(3): 622-642. https://doi.org/10.24349/acarologia/20204391
Kreiter S., Bopp M.-C., Douin M., Nguyen D.T., Wyckhuys K. 2020b. Phytoseiidae of Vietnam (Acari:
Mesostigmata) with description of a new species. Acarologia 60(1): 75-110. https://doi.org/10.24349/
acarologia/20204362
Kreiter S., Fontaine O., Payet R.-M. 2018a. New records of Phytoseiidae (Acari: Mesostigmata) from
Mauritius. Acarologia, 58(4): 773-785. https://doi.org/10.24349/acarologia/20184273
Kreiter S., Payet R.-M., Fillâtre J., Abdou Azali H. 2018b. First records of Phytoseiidae from one island
of the Comoros Archipelago. Acarologia, 58(3): 529-545. https://doi.org/10.24349/acarologia/20184256
Kreiter S., Payet R.-M., Abdou Azali H. 2021a. Phytoseiid mites of Anjouan Island (Acari: Mesostigmata).
Acarologia, 61(1): 62-83. https://doi.org/10.24349/acarologia/20214418
Kreiter S., Payet R.-M., Abdou Azali H. 2021b. Phytoseiid mites of Mohéli Island (Acari: Mesostigmata).
Acarologia, 61(1): 94-114. https://doi.org/10.24349/acarologia/20214419
Kreiter S., Payet R.-M., Mouigni H., Douin M., Tixier M.-S., Abdou Azali H. 2021c. New records
of phytoseiid mites (Acari: Mesostigmata) from Grande Comore Island (Comoros Archipelago).
Acarologia, 61(2): 241-273. https://doi.org/10.24349/acarologia/20214429
Kreiter S., Payet R.-M., Abo-Shnaf R.I.A., Douin M. 2021d. New Phytoseiidae (Acari: Mesostigmata)
of Mascareignes and Comoros Archipelagos (Indian Ocean): one new record, three new species
groups and description of six new species and of six unknown males. Acarologia in press.
https://doi.org/10.24349/Krky-e23s
Kreiter S., Payet R.-M., Douin M., Fontaine O., Fillâtre J., Le Bellec F. 2020c. Phytoseiidae of La
Réunion Island (Acari: Mesostigmata): three new species and two males described, new synonymies,
and new records. Acarologia 60(1): 111-195. https://doi.org/10.24349/acarologia/20204361
Lindquist E.E. 1994. Some observations on the chaetotaxy of the caudal body region of gamasine mites
(Acari: Mesostigmata), with a modified notation for some ventrolateral body setae. Acarologia, 35:
323-326.
Lindquist E.E., Evans G.W. 1965. Taxonomic concepts in the Ascidae, with a modified setal nomenclature
for the idiosoma of the Gamasina (Acarina: Mesostigmata). Mem. Entomol. Soc. Canada, 47: 1-64.
https://doi.org/10.4039/entm9747fv
McMurtry J.A., Croft B.A. 1997. Life-styles of phytoseiid mites and their roles in biological control. Ann.
Rev. Entomol., 42: 291-321. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ento.42.1.291
McMurtry J.A., Moraes G.J. de, Sourassou N.F. 2013. Revision of the life styles of phytoseiid mites
(Acari: Phytoseiidae) and implications for biological control strategies. Syst. Appl. Acarol., 18:
297-320. https://doi.org/10.11158/saa.18.4.1
Moraes G.J. de, McMurtry J.A., Denmark H.A. 1986. A catalog of the mite family Phytoseiidae.
References to taxonomy, synonymy, distribution and habitat. EMBRAPA-DDT, Brasilia, Brazil, 353
pp.
Moraes G.J. de, Lopes P.C., Fernando C.P. 2004a. Phytoseiid mite (Acari: Phytoseiidae) of coconut
growing areas in Sri Lanka, with descriptions of three new species. J. Acarol. Soc. Japan, 13(2):
141-160. https://doi.org/10.2300/acari.13.141
Moraes G.J. de, McMurtry J.A., Denmark H.A., Campos C.B. 2004b. A revised catalog of the mite family
Phytoseiidae. Zootaxa, 434: 1-494. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.434.1.1
Muma M.H. 1961. Subfamiles, genera, and species of Phytoseiidae (Acarina: Mesostigmata). Fla St.
Mus. Bul., 5(7): 267-302
Muma M.H., Denmark H.A. 1970. Phytoseiidae of Florida. Arthropods of Florida and neighboring
land areas, 6. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry,
Gainesville, USA, 150 pp.
Myers N. 1988. Threatened biotas: hostspots in tropical forests. Environmentalist, 8: 187-208.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02240252
Myers N., Mittermeier R.A., Mittermeier C.G., Da Fonseca G.A., Kent J. 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for
conservation priorities. Nature, 403: 853-858. https://doi.org/10.1038/35002501
Oliveira D.C., Charanasri V., Kongchuensin M., Konvipasruang P., Chandrapatya A., Moraes G.J. de.
2012. Phytoseiidae of Thailand (Acari: Mesostigmata), with a key for their identification. Zootaxa,
3453: 1-24. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3453.1.1
Quilici S., Ueckermann E. A., Kreiter S., Vayssières J.-F. 2000. Phytoseiidae (Acari) of La Réunion
Island. Acarologia, 41(1-2): 97-108.
Rowell H.J., Chant D.A., Hansell R.I.C. 1978. The determination of setal homologies and setal patterns on
the dorsal shield in the family Phytoseiidae (Acarina: Mesostigmata). Can. Entomol., 110: 859-876.
https://doi.org/10.4039/Ent110859-8
Schicha E., Corpuz-Raros L.A. 1992. Phytoseiidae of the Philippines. Indira Publishing House, West
Bloomfield, Michigan, USA, 190 pp.
Walter D.E., Krantz G.W. 2009. Collecting, rearing and preparing specimens. In: Krantz G.W., Walter
D.E. (eds) A manual of Acarology, 3rd ed. Texas Tech University Press, Lubbock. 807 pp.
Kreiter S. and Ferragut F. (2021), Acarologia 61(3): 747-757. https://doi.org/10.24349/tyea-u51Q
757