Jose, Anna ¹ ; Döker, Ismail ² ; Gowda, Channegowda Chinnamade ³ and Hiremath, Renuka ⁴

¹Department of Agricultural Entomology, University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore, India.
²✉ Cukurova University, Agricultural Faculty, Department of Plant Protection, Acarology Lab, Adana, Turkey.
³✉ Department of Agricultural Entomology, University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore, India.
⁴Department of Agricultural Entomology, University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore, India.

2023 - Volume: 63 Issue: 3 pages: 783-792

ZooBank LSID: EEF1FD55-DB23-407C-8B9A-4D2118D9DCBF

Original research

Keywords

Abstract

Introduction

Species of the family Phytoseiidae (Acari: Mesostigmata) are one of the most studied groups because of their potential as predators of economically important mites and some other soft-bodied arthropods (McMurtry et al. 2013). The genus Neoseiulus Hughes is one of the largest groups of phytoseiid mites with about 400 species including synonyms (Zannou et al. 2006; Tsolakis and Ragusa 2016; Ferragut and Navia 2022; Demite et al. 2023; Döker et al. 2023).

Studies on phytoseiid taxonomy from India date back to the beginning of the 1960s with a series of new species being described since 1960 to date (Narayanan and Kaur 1960; Gupta 1975, 1977, 1986). However, most of early descriptions or re-descriptions did not include many important characters which are currently used to discriminate phytoseiid species, except the studies published in the last decade (Karmakar et al. 2017; Kar and Karmakar 2022; Biswas and Karmakar 2023). The inadequate descriptions and re-descriptions or the absence of redescriptions for many phytoseiid species have made accurate species identifications a challenge in India. These situations have often resulted in misidentifications and overall confusion among taxonomists.

In the country, the faunistic studies on native phytoseiid species have reported more than 200 species belonging to 24 genera (Gupta and Karmakar 2015; Pramanik and Karmakar 2016; Jayaram et al. 2016; Santhosh et al. 2018; Kar and Karmakar 2021). Despite the large number of native phytoseiids reported, only 13 species of Neoseiulus are known in the country (Gupta and Karmakar 2015; Bhowmik and Karmakar 2021; Demite et al. 2023).

The Karnataka state located in the southwestern region is a part of highly biodiversity rich regions of India. The state comprises of three geographical regions: coastal region of Karavali and Tulu Nadu, Bayaluseeme region comprising the plains of Deccan plateau and the Hilly Malenadu comprising of Western Ghats, which is one of the 36 biodiversity hotspots in the world. Due to the varying geographic and physiographic conditions, Karnataka experiences climatic variations that range from arid–semi arid in plateau region, sub humid–humid tropical in Western Ghats and humid tropical monsoon in the coastal plains. Therefore, the region may have a great potential for the discovery of new phytoseiid species. However, the state's phytoseiid fauna is less explored compared to northern states of India (Karmakar et al. 2017; Kar and Karmakar 2021; Biswas and Karmakar 2023). In this study, we described a new species of Neoseiulus from Karnataka, India.

Material and methods

Leaves of plants were inspected with a 10X hand magnifier and those with phytoseiid mites were collected. They were inspected in the laboratory, collecting all mites into MA 80 (Methanol 40 parts, acetic acid 40 parts and water 20 parts) and mounted them on microscope slides in Hoyer's medium. Pictures were taken by using compound microscope Zeiss Axio Imager A1, equipped with differential interference contrast (DIC) optical system and Nikon D7500 camera. Line drawings were performed using a computer program Adobe Photoshop (version CS6) based on the photos. The taxonomic system follows that of Chant and McMurtry (2007). Dorsal setal nomenclature is based on Lindquist and Evans (1965), as adapted by Rowell et al. (1978); ventral setal nomenclature is based on Chant and Yoshida-Shaul (1991); idiosomal setal pattern is based on Chant and Yoshida-Shaul (1992). Nomenclature of dorsal solenostomes (gland pores) is based on Athias-Henriot (1975). Leg chaetotaxy follows that of Evans (1963). Measurements were taken using ProgRes® Image Capture Software. The measurements for each structure are given in micrometers and presented as mean followed by the respective range, in parenthesis.

Results

Neoseiulus ramabettaensis n. sp. Döker and Jose

ZOOBANK: 407705E8-EB09-42CA-8ECC-A698D516E287

(Figures 1–2)

Diagnosis

Idiosomal setal pattern 10A:9B/JV-3:ZV (r3 and R1 off shield). Dorsal shield reticulated with seven pairs of solenostomes (gd1, gd2, gd4, gd5, gd6, gd8, and gd9) with strong waist at level of seta R1. Dorsal setae short, except j1, j3, Z4 and Z5 conspicuously longer than others. Dorsal setae smooth, except Z4 and Z5 serrated. Peritremes long, extending to setae level of j1. All ventral shields smooth. Sternal shield with three pairs of setae, posterior margin slightly concave, ventrianal shield pentagonal, with three pairs of preanal setae and with large crescentic preanal solenostomes. Calyx of spermatheca elongated, tubular and flaring distally, atrium c-shaped, nodular attached to calyx without neck. Fixed digit of chelicera with 11-12 teeth and movable digit with two teeth. Genu II with eight setae (2 2/1 2/0 1). Leg I with a short macroseta on genu and other legs without macroseta.

Description

Female (n=5)

Dorsum — (Figure 1A). Dorsal setal pattern 10A:9B (r3 and R1 off shield). Dorsal shield entire, well sclerotized, strongly reticulated, with waist at level of seta R1, with seven pairs of solenostomes (gd1, gd2, gd4, gd5, gd6, gd8 and gd9) and 16 pairs of poroids (id1, id2, id4, id5, id6, idm1, idm2, idm3, idm4, idm5 idm6, idx, is1, idl1, idl3 and idl4); muscle-marks (sigillae) visible mostly on podosoma. Length of dorsal shield 380 (373–393), width at level of s4 224 (222–227), width at level of S2 199 (194–205). Peritremes long, extending to seta level of j1. Dorsal setae smooth, except Z4 and Z5, serrated. Dorsal setae generally short (shorter than 30) except j1, j3, Z4 and Z5 noticeably longer than others. Measurements of dorsal setae as follows: j1 37 (35–39), j3 41 (39–43), j4 15 (14–16), j5 14, j6 18 (17–19), J2 17 (16–18), J5 11 (10–12), z2 20 (18–21), z4 19 (16–20), z5 15 (13–15), Z1 18 (18–19), Z4 43 (41–47), Z5 74 (69–79), s4 27 (26–29), S2 21 (20–24), S4 22 (19–24), S5 22 (18–24), r3 22 (19–24) and R1 22 (21–23).

Venter — (Figure 1B). Ventral setal pattern 14: JV-3:ZV. Sternal shield smooth, sclerotized, posterior margin slightly concave; with three pairs of setae (ST1, ST2 and ST3), two pairs of poroids (pst1 and pst2); distance between ST1–ST3 83 (82–84), ST2–ST2 82 (81–83). Metasternal setae ST4 and a pair of pores (pst3) on metasternal platelets. Genital shield smooth; width at level of setae ST5 87 (81–89). Ventrianal shield pentagonal, smooth; with three pairs of pre-anal setae (JV1, JV2 and ZV2); one pair of paraanal (Pa) and a postanal seta (Pst); with large crescentic preanal solenostomes; distance between gv3–gv3 24 (21–25). Length of ventrianal shield 138 (132–153), width at level of setae ZV2 109 (105–114), width at level of paraanal setae 77 (76–80). Setae ZV1, ZV3, JV4 and JV5 and six pairs of poroids on integument surrounding ventrianal shield. Seta JV5 smooth, 24 (23–26) in length.

Chelicera — (Figure 1C). Fixed digit 43 (41–44) long with 11–12 teeth and pilus dentilis; movable digit 45 (44–47) long with two teeth, one normal in size other conspicuously larger.

Spermatheca — (Figure 1D). Calyx elongated, tubular, flaring distally, 27 (26–28) in length; atrium c-shaped and nodular attached to calyx without neck.

Legs — (Figure 2A–D). Length of legs (excluding pretarsus): I, 330 (301–342); II, 307 (298–311); III, 297 (273–309); IV, 376 (352–387). Chaetotactic formulae as follows: Leg I: coxa 0 0/1 0/1 0, trochanter 1 0/1 0/2 1, femur 2 3/1 2/2 2, genu 2 2/1 2/1 2, tibia 2 2/1 2/1 2. Leg II: coxa 0 0/1 0/1 0, trochanter 1 0/1 0/2 1, femur 2 3/1 2/1 1, genu 2 2/1 2/0 1, tibia 1 1/1 2/1 1. Leg III: coxa 0 0/1 0/1 0, trochanter 1 1/1 0/2 0, femur 1 2/1 1/0 1, genu 1 2/1 2/0 1, tibia 1 1/1 2/1 1. Leg IV: coxa 0 0/1 0/0 0, trochanter 1 1/1 0/2 0, femur 1 2/1 1/0 1, genu 1 2/1 2/0 1, tibia 1 1/1 2/0 1. Leg I with a short macroseta on genu, thicker and relatively longer than other setae on the same segment, SgeI 29 (28–30) in length, other legs without macroseta. Setae pd3 and al3 on basitarsus IV are similar in length and thickness. Seta pd3 usually modified as macroseta in other phytoseiid species is not noticeably different than seta al3.

Male

Unknown.

Type material

Holotype female from Milletia pinnata (L.) Panigrahi. (Fabaceae) and a paratype female from Achyranthes sp. (Amaranthaceae) in Ramadevarabetta, Karnataka, India, 12°45′05.6124″ N, 077°18′04.9104″ E, 871 meters above sea level, December 2, 2022, Anna Jose coll. Three paratype females from M. pinnata in Shimoga, Karnataka, India, November 25, 2006, C. Chinnamade Gowda Coll.

Depository — The type materials were deposited in the mite collection of the All India Network Project on Agricultural Acarology, Department of Agricultural Entomology, University of Agricultural Sciences, Karnataka, India.

Etymology

The name of the new species ''ramabettaensis'' is derived from the type locality Ramadevarabetta, Karnataka, India where the holotype and a paratype specimens were collected.

Differential diagnosis

The new species is accommodated to the genus Neoseiulus by having dorsal setal pattern 10A:9B, ratio setae s4:Z1 < 3.0, many teeth on fixed digit of chelicera and lack of macroseta on legs II, III and IV. Neoseiulus ramabettaensis n. sp. Döker and Jose can be included in the cucumeris species group and ceratoni species subgroup due to the morphological characters already mentioned as well as the tubular calyx of spermatheca and its nodular atrium (Chant and McMurtry 2003). The new species can be separated from all known species of the ceratoni species subgroup by having setae j1 and j3, in addition to Z4 and Z5, conspicuously longer than other dorsal setae. In contrast, only setae Z4 and Z5 conspicuously longer than others, and setae j1 and j3 are similar in length with the rest of setae in other known species (Muma et al. 1967; Ueckermann and Loots 1988; Karg 1989; Zannou et al. 2006; Papadoulis et al. 2009; Wu et al. 2009; Denmark and Evans 2011; Döker et al. 2021a). In addition, the new species is distinctly different than other known species in the subgroup by having 11-12 teeth on fixed digit and two teeth on movable digit of chelicera, conspicuously wider ventrianal shield at anterior corners, and large crescentic preanal pores. In contrast, fixed digit with a few apical teeth, ventrianal shield not wider at anterior corners and preanal pores simple and rounded in the other species. Neoseiulus ramabettaensis n. sp. Döker and Jose show affinity to N. disparis described by Chaudhri, Akbar and Rasool in 1979 from Pakistan. Movable digit of chelicera of the new species has two teeth as oppose to one in N. disparis (Chaundri et al. 1979). The chelicera dentition is widely used as a diagnostic character in the genus Neoseiulus (Faraji et al. 2007; Kreiter et al. 2018; Tsolakis and Ragusa 2020; Döker et al. 2021b; Ferragut and Navia 2022). Indeed, the usefulness of movable digit dentition to separate closely related species in Kampimodromus, another genus in the subfamily Amblyseiinae, have been confirmed by molecular analyses in several cases (Tixier et al. 2008; Döker et al. 2018). In addition, according to the original description , seta Z4 reaches the base of Z5 in N. disparis but not in the new species. Furthermore, N. disparis has a macroseta on basitarsus IV which is at least two times longer than the other three setae on the same segment (Chaundri et al. 1979). In contrast, macroseta is absent on this leg segment in the new species, and setae pd3 and al3 are similar in length and thickness. In other words, seta pd3 usually modified as macroseta in other phytoseiid species is not noticeably different than seta al3. Moreover, the new species has large crescentic preanal pores, but these pores are absent in N. disparis. Indeed, Chaundri et al. (1979) illustrated not only large crescentic but also small rounded preanal pores for many other species in the same publication, but not for N. disparis. The new species also shows affinity to N. rancidus (Chaudhri et al. 1979) based on the dorsal setae measurements and shape of ventrianal shield, however, dorsal seta J1 is present in this species.

If we ignore the absence of macroseta on legs II, III and IV, on the other hand, the new species can be placed in the lugubris species group in the genus Typhlodromips De Leon, due to chelicera dentition and spermatheca morphology (Chant and McMurtry 2005; 2007). In this case, it can be separated from all other species listed in that species group by the shape of ventrianal shield and the relative measurements of setae j1, j3, Z4 and Z5 compared to the other dorsal setae.

Remarks

The current study describes a macroseta on leg I (SgeI) for a species listed in the ceratoni species subgroup for the first time. Indeed, the presence of SgeI, and the absence of macroseta on leg IV are unusual characters for the genus Neoseiulus, except a few previous studies that reported SgeI in some species in the desertus species group (Chant and McMurtry 2003; Bas et al. 2022). Therefore, chaetotaxy of legs frequently used in the systematics of other groups of Mesostigmata which are closely related to phytoseiid mites, seems to be an important morphological character and should be included in future descriptions.

Key to Indian species of Neoseiulus Hughes

1. Spermatheca with atrium forked for at least half its length at juncture with major duct, or atrium appearing thick-walled, vacuolated
...... 2

— Spermatheca with atrium not deeply forked at juncture with major duct, nor appearing thick-walled, vacuolated
...... 4

2. Dorsal setae usually short not reach to the base of following setae
...... 3

— Dorsal setae longer, most of them reach and passes the base of the following setae
...... Neoseiulus longispinosus (Evans)

3. Dorsal shield smooth
...... Neoseiulus barkeri Hughes

— Dorsal shield faintly reticulate
...... Neoseiulus indicus (Narayanan & Kaur)

4. Female ventrianal shield large, square or rectangular, rounded posteriorly (L/W ratio.= 1.0-1.3:1.0); dorsal shield with marked shoulder at level of seta z4
...... 5

— Female ventrianal shield pentagonal or with lateral margins slightly rounded or shield shaped; dorsal shield without marked shoulder at level of seta z4
...... 7

5. Preanal pores gv3 present
...... 6

— Preanal pores gv3 absent
...... Neoseiulus aceriae (Gupta)

6. Preanal pores gv3 crescentic, located close to each other
...... Neoseiulus baraki (Athias-Henriot)

— Preanal pores gv3 rounded, located apart from each other
...... Neoseiulus paspalivorus (De Leon)

7. Spermatheca with calyx elongate, tubular, flaring distally
...... 8

— Spermatheca with calyx cup-, bell-, dish or V-shaped, or short saccular
...... 10

8. Genu II with eight setae; leg IV without macroseta; movable digit of chelicera with two teeth; fixed digit with many teeth evenly distributed along the digit
...... Neoseiulus ramabettaensis n. sp. Döker & Jose

— Genu II with seven setae; leg IV with three macrosetae; movable digit of chelicera with one tooth; fixed digit a few teeth apically
...... 9

9. Genu III with eight setae; macrosetae on genu IV and basitarsus IV subequal in length
...... Neoseiulus pranadae Karmakar & Gupta

— Genu III with seven setae; macrosetae on genu IV shorter than that on basitarsus IV
...... Neoseiulus cynodonae (Gupta)

10. Calyx of spermatheca bell-shaped or saccular
...... 11

— Calyx of spermatheca cup-shaped
...... 12

11. Calyx of spermatheca bell-shaped; movable digit of chelicera with three teeth
...... Neoseiulus fallacis (Garman)

— Calyx of spermatheca saccular; movable digit of chelicera with one tooth
...... Neoseiulus cucumeris (Oudemans)

12. Dorsal setae Z4 and Z5 subequal in length or Z4 slightly shorter than Z5
...... 13

— Dorsal seta Z5 conspicuously longer (at least two times) than seta Z4
...... 14

13. Dorsal seta Z4 slightly shorter than Z5
...... Neoseiulus imbricatus (Corpuz & Rimando)

— Dorsal setae Z4 and Z5 subequal in length
...... Neoseiulus lablabi (Ghai & Menon)

14. Ratio setae Z4/Z5 about 1:2
...... Neoseiulus ficusi (Gupta)

— Ratio setae Z4/Z5 about 1:5
...... Neoseiulus neoghanii (Gupta)

Notes on the identification key

1. The preliminary list of Neoseiulus species was obtained from the most recent checklist of Indian phytoseiid mites constructed by Gupta and Karmakar (2015). In addition, subsequent reports of species under the genus Neoseiulus were also considered (Suresh et al. 2016; Sathish et al. 2019; Bhowmik and Karmakar 2021).
2. None of the material of any Indian species of the genus treated in the current key was examined in this study, except the new species. Therefore, we just considered valid species names reported from India and have relied on their original descriptions and acceptable redescriptions to construct the key. The preliminary separation of the species based on the most widely used classification system suggested by Chant and McMurtry (2007).
3. Two species, N. bindrai and N. dhooriai both described by Gupta (1977) were considered junior synonyms of N. indicus and N. baraki, respectively, as suggested by the descriptor in his subsequent monograph (Gupta 1986).
4. Neoseiulus oahuensis (Prasad) was considered as junior synonym of N. barkeri according to Ragusa and Athias-Henriot (1983).
5. Neoseiulus reticulatus (Oudemans) reported by Gupta (1975, 1977) was not included in the current key, because of a possible misidentification. Indeed, a subsequent illustration by the same author (Gupta 1986) shows a smooth movable digit as opposed to two teeth in a redescription of the species by Kolodochka (1988).
6. The original description of N. daturae by Suresh et al. (2016) shows many teeth on the fixed digit, and macrosetae on legs II and III, in addition to leg IV, are present. Therefore, the species is not fit the definition of the genus in the tribe Neoseiulini but maybe with Typhlodromips in the tribe Typhlodromipsini (Chant and McMurtry 2007). For this reason, the type material of N. daturae requires reconsideration. Consequently, we did not include this species in the identification key.

Acknowledgement

Award of Senior Research Fellowship by Indian Council of Agricultural Research during the Ph.D. programme of Anna Jose is gratefully acknowledged. Study of Ismail Döker was supported by Cukurova University Scientific Projects Foundation Units, grant number, FAY-2022-14495.

References

1. Athias-Henriot C. 1975. Nouvelles notes sur les Amblyseiini. II. Le relevé organotaxique de la face dorsale adulte (Gamasides, protoadéniques, Phytoseiidae). Acarologia, 17: 20-29.
2. Bas H., Döker I., Ozman-Sullivan S.K. 2022. New records and complementary descriptions of three Phytoseiidae (Acari: Mesostigmata) species from Turkey. Int. J. Acarol., 48: 393-400. https://doi.org/10.1080/01647954.2022.2082527
3. Bhowmik S., Karmakar K. 2021. Five new species and re-description of eight species belonging to the family Phytoseiidae (Acari: Mesostigmata) from West Bengal, India. Zootaxa, 4975: 401-450.
4. Biswas S., Karmakar K. 2023. Descriptions of five new species of phytoseiid mites (Acari: Mesostigmata) from Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Int. J. Acarol., 49: 34-48. https://doi.org/10.1080/01647954.2023.2178504
5. Chant D.A., Yoshida-Shaul E. 1991. Adult ventral setal patterns in the family Phytoseiidae (Acari: Gamasina). Int. J. Acarol., 17: 187-199. https://doi.org/10.1080/01647959108683906
6. Chant D.A., Yoshida-Shaul E. 1992. Adult idiosomal setal patterns in the family Phytoseiidae (Acari: Gamasina). Int. J. Acarol., 18: 177-193. https://doi.org/10.1080/01647959208683949
7. Chant D.A., McMurtry J.A. 2003. A review of the subfamily Amblyseiinae Muma (Acari: Phytoseiidae): Part I. Neoseiulini new tribe. Int. J. Acarol., 29: 3-46. https://doi.org/10.1080/01647950308684319
8. Chant D.A., McMurtry J.A. 2005. A review of the subfamily Amblyseiinae Muma (Acari: Phytoseiidae) Part VII. Typhlodromipsini n. tribe. Int. J. Acarol., 31: 315-340. https://doi.org/10.1080/01647950508683673
9. Chant D.A., McMurtry J.A. 2007. Illustrated keys and diognoses for the genera and subgenera of the Phytoseiidae of the world (Acari: Mesostigmata). West Bloomfield, Indira Publishing House, 219 pp.
10. Chaudhri W.M., Akbar S., Rasool A. 1979. Studies on the predatory leaf inhabiting mites of Pakistan. University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan, 243 pp
11. Demite P.R., de Moraes G.J., McMurtry J.A., Denmark H.A., Castilho R.C. 2023. Phytoseiidae database. [accessed 2023 May 19]. https://www.lea.esalq.usp.br/phytoseiidae/
12. Denmark H.A., Evans G.A. 2011. Phytoseiidae of North America and Hawaii (Acari: Mesostigmata). Indira Publishing House, West Bloomfield, USA, 451 pp.
13. Döker I., Karut K., Karaca M.M., Cargnus E., Kazak C. 2018. Internal Transcribed Spacer (ITS) sequences of some Kampimodromus (Acari: Phytoseiidae) species: Is Kampimodromus ragusai a valid species or a synonym of Kampimodromus aberrans? Syst. Appl. Acarol., 23: 2237-2243. https://doi.org/10.11158/saa.23.11.15
14. Döker I., Khaustov V.A., Joharchi O. 2021a. Redescriptions of two little known species of Neoseiulus Hughes (Acari: Phytoseiidae) with description of a new species from Russia. Syst. Appl. Acarol., 26: 672-683. https://doi.org/10.11158/saa.26.4.2
15. Döker I., Ueckermann E.A., Khaustov V.A., Joharchi O., Hänel, C. 2021b. Neoseiulus cunhaensis sp. nov. (Acari: Mesostigmata: Phytoseiidae) from Tristan da Cunha with a key to the paspalivorus species group. Syst. Appl. Acarol., 26: 568-576. https://doi.org/10.11158/saa.26.3.6
16. Döker I., Stathakis Th.I., Kolodochka L.A. 2023. Neoseiulus pseudomarginatus sp. nov., a new species of predatory mites (Acari: Phytoseiidae) continuously misidentified as Neoseiulus marginatus (Wainstein) from the Mediterranean countries. Syst. Appl. Acarol., 28: 828-837. https://doi.org/10.11158/saa.28.5.5
17. Evans G.O. 1963. Observations on the chaetotaxy of the legs in the free-living Gamasina (Acari: Mesostigmata). Bull. Br. Mus. Nat. Hist., Zool., 10: 275-303. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.part.20528
18. Faraji F., Hajizadch J., Ueckermann E.A., Kamali K., McMurtry J.A. 2007. Two new records for Iranian Phytoseiid mites with synonymy and keys of Typhloseiulus Chant and McMurtry and Phytoseiidae in Iran (Acari: Mesostigmata). Int. J. Acarol., 33: 231-239. https://doi.org/10.1080/01647950708684527
19. Ferragut F., Navia D. 2022. The genus Neoseiulus Hughes (Mesostigmata: Phytoseiidae) in the Espinhaço Range, a great reservoir of biodiversity. Zootaxa, 5120: 523-542. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5120.4.4
20. Gupta S.K. 1975. Mites of the genus Amblyseius (Acarina: Phytoseiidae) from India with descriptions of eight new species. Int. J. Acarol., 1: 26-45. https://doi.org/10.1080/01647957508683746
21. Gupta S.K. 1977. Some undescribed and little-known species of Amblyseius (Acarina: Phytoseiidae) from western and northern India. Indian J. Acarol., 1: 28-37.
22. Gupta S.K. 1986. Fauna of India (Acari: Mesostigmata) Family Phytoseiidae. Zoological Survey of India, Kolkatta, 350pp.
23. Gupta S.K., Karmakar K. 2015. An updated checklist of Indian phytoseiid mites (Acari: Mesostigmata). Rec. Zool. Surv. India, 115: 51-72.
24. Jayaram C.S., Kumar P.S., Gupta S.K. 2016. First report of six predatory mites (Acari: Phytoseiidae) from the central Indian state of Chhattisgarh. Israel J. Agric. Res., 19:115-117.
25. Kar A., Karmakar K. 2021. Description of eleven new species of phytoseiid mites (Acari: Mesostigmata) from Meghalaya state, north eastern India. Zootaxa, 5068: 301-354. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5068.3.1
26. Kar A. and Karmakar K. 2022. Seven new species of phytoseiid mites (Acari: Mesostigmata) from Tripura, north-eastern India. Zootaxa, 5120: 213-241. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5120.2.3
27. Karg W. 1989. Zur Kenntnis der Raubmilbengattung Amblyseius Berlese, 1904 (Acarina, Parasitiformes, Phytoseiidae). Entomol. Z., N. F., 36: 113-119. https://doi.org/10.1002/mmnd.4810360116
28. Karmakar K., Bhowmik S., Sherpa C., 2017. Description of five new species and re-description of two species of Amblyseius (Acari: Phytoseiidae) from West Bengal, India. Zootaxa, 4311: 39-61. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4311.1.3
29. Kreiter S., Zriki G., Ryckewaert P., Pancarte C., Douin, M., Tixier M.-S. 2018. Phytoseiid mites of Martinique, with redescription of four species and new records (Acari: Mesostigmata). Acarologia, 58: 366-407. https://doi.org/10.24349/acarologia/20184248
30. Kolodochka, L.A. 1988. Redescription of a little known Amblyseius reticulatus (Parasitiformes, Phytoseiidae). Vestn. Zool., 21-25 [in Russian].
31. Lindquist E.E., Evans G.O. 1965. Taxonomic concepts in the Ascidae, with a modified setal nomenclature for the idiosoma of the Gamasina (Acarina: Mesostigmata). Mem. Ent. Soc. Can., 47: 1-64. https://doi.org/10.4039/entm9747fv
32. McMurtry J.A., Moraes G.J. de., Sourassou N.F. 2013. Revision of the lifestyles 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
33. Muma M.H. 1967. New Phytoseiidae (Acarina: Mesostigmata) from southern Asia. Fla. Entomol., 50: 267-280. https://doi.org/10.2307/3493156
34. Narayanan E.S., Kaur R.B. 1960. Two new species of the genus Typhlodromus Scheuten from India (Acarina: Phytoseiidae). Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. 51B, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03050263
35. Papadoulis G.T., Emmanouel N.G., Kapaxidi E.V. 2009. Phytoseiidae of Greece and Cyprus (Acari: Mesostigmata). West Bloomfield, Indira Publishing House, 200 pp.
36. Pramanik S., Karmakar K., 2016. Description of six new species of phytoseiid mites (Acari: Phytoseiidae) from Arunachal Pradesh, India. Persian J. Acarol., 5: 161-187.
37. Ragusa S., Athias-Henriot C. 1983. Observations on the genus Neoseiulus Hughes (Parasitiformes, Phytoseiidae). Redefinition. Composition. Geography. Description of two new species. Revue Suisse de Zoologie, 90: 657-678. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.part.82005
38. Rowell H.L., 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
39. Santhosh P.P., Sadanandan M.A., Rahul M.P. 2018. Two new species of phytoseiid mites Euseius (Acari: Phytoseiidae) from Kerala, India. J. Threat. Taxa, 10: 12828-12832. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.3125.10.13.12828-12832
40. Sathish B.N., Radadia G.G., Shukla A. 2019. Descriptions of phytoseiid mite, Neoseiulus baraki (Athias Henriot) (Acari: Mesostigmata: Phytoseiidae), a predator of coconut eriyophid mite Aceria guerreronis Keifer. Indian J. Appl. Entomol., 33: 74-84.
41. Suresh S., Thanigairaj R., Ramaraju K. 2016. A new species of Neoseiulus Hughes (Acari: Mesostigmata: Phytoseiidae). Indian J. Entomol., 78: 117-121. https://doi.org/10.5958/0974-8172.2016.00039.0
42. Tixier M.-S., Kreiter S., Croft B.A., Cheval B. 2008. Kampimodromus aberrans (Acari: Phytoseiidae) from the USA: morphological and molecular assessment of its density. Bull. Entomol. Res., 98: 125-134. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007485307005457
43. Tsolakis H. Ragusa S. 2016. On the identity of Neoseiulus fallacis (Garman 1948) (Parasitiformes, Phytoseiidae) redescription of the species and description of the new species Neoseiulus garmani. Int. J. Acarol., 42: 394-404. https://doi.org/10.1080/01647954.2016.1205134
44. Tsolakis H. Ragusa S. 2020. New records of phytoseiid mites from Italy, with description of a new species and a redescription of other two (Parasitiformes, Phytoseiidae). Acarologia, 60: 735-752. https://doi.org/10.24349/acarologia/20204399
45. Ueckermann E.A., Loots G.C. 1988. The African species of the subgenera Anthoseius De Leon and Amblyseius Berlese (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Entomology Memoir, Department of Agriculture and Water Supply, Republic of South Africa, 73: 168 pp.
46. Wu W.N., Ou J.F., Huang J.L. 2009. Fauna Sinica, Invertebrata vol. 47. Arachnida Acari: Phytoseiidae. Science Press, Beijing, China. 511 pp. [In Chinese with English abstract].
47. Zannou I.D., Moraes G.J., Ueckermann E.A., Oliveira A.R., Yaninek J.S. Hanna R. 2006. Phytoseiid mites of the genus Neoseiulus Hughes (Acari: Phytoseiidae) from sub-Saharan Africa. Int. J. Acarol., 32: 241-276. https://doi.org/10.1080/01647950608684467

instructions