Amblyseius cinctus Corpuz & Rimando

Oliveira, Daniel C., Charanasri, Vatana, Kongchuensin, Manita, Konvipasruang, Ploychompoo, Chandrapatya, Angsumarn & De, Gilberto J., 2012, Phytoseiidae of Thailand (Acari: Mesostigmata), with a key for their identification, Zootaxa 3453, pp. 1-24 : 2-3

Amblyseius cinctus Corpuz & Rimando

Amblyseius cinctus Corpuz & Rimando, 1966: 119 ; Moraes et al., 1986: 10; 2004b: 20; Denmark & Muma, 1989: 103; Schicha & Corpuz-Raros, 1992: 35; Wu et al., 1997b: 58; Wu & Ou, 2001: 105; Chant & McMurtry, 2004a: 203; 2007: 78. Amblyseius (Amblyseius) cinctus .— Ehara & Bhandhufalck, 1977: 70; Ehara, 2002: 35.

Amblyseius (Multiseius) cinctus .— Denmark & Muma, 1989: 103.

Specimens examined. Four females, on Hibiscus sp., at Chiang Rai Province, December, 1970, collected by S. Ehara.

Female

Dorsal shield 326 (312–341) long and 223 (218–227) wide; j1 25 (24–25), j3 45 (44–46), j4 5 (5–6), j5 4, j6 6 (5–7), J2 6 (6–7), J5 6, z2 10, z4 7, z5 4, Z1 7 (7–8), Z4 95 (88–106), Z5 172 (168–182), s4 70 (68–77), S2 8 (7–8), S4 7 (6–7), S5 6 (5–7), r3 13 (13–14), R1 7 (7–8); distances between St1-St3 56 (55–58), St2-St2 66 (65–67), St5- St5 68 (66–70); ventrianal shield 114 (110–118) long, 80 (78–84) wide at level of ZV2; calyx of spermatheca 11 (10–11) long; Sge I 34 (32–35), Sge II 33 (32–34), Sge III 44 (42–46), Sti III 31 (28–32), Sge IV 84 (80–86), Sti IV 49 (46–54), St IV 66 (64–67).

Previous records. China, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand (Provinces of Bangkok, Chiang Mai, Chiang Rai, Kanchanaburi, Nakhon Pathom and Nakhon Ratchasima, Ehara & Bhandhufalck, 1977).

Remarks. No additional specimens of this species were collected in this study. Measurements of only a few structures were given in the original description of A. cinctus . Additional measurements of the same and other structures were provided by Schicha & Corpuz (1992), based on specimens collected in the Phillipines, the country where the type specimens had been collected. In both cases, a single measurement was provided for each structure, and thus little is known about the morphological variability for this species in that country. Measurements were provided by Ehara & Bhandhufalck (1977) for a specimen from Thailand and by Wu et al. (1997b) for specimens from China. The measurements mentioned in the original description and by Schicha & Corpuz (1992) are very similar to those of Ehara & Bhandhufalck (1977), Wu et al. (1997b) and to our measurements of four specimens collected by S. Ehara in Pan (Phan?), Province of Chiang Rai, northern Thailand, suggesting that they all refer to the same species. The illustration of the spermatheca of this species in the original description of the species lacks some details. Ehara & Bhandhufalck (1977), Wu & Ou (2001), Wu et al. (1997b) and Ehara (2002) illustrated the calyx and the base of the major duct as “H shaped”. This is also the case for the specimens collected in Chiang Rai that S. Ehara examined. However, the shape of the calyx illustrated by Schicha & Corpuz (1992) is slightly different, with the major duct distinctly narrower that the calyx.