Amblyseius longipilus (Kreiter & Ueckermann)

Kreiter, Serge, Payet, Rose-My, Douin, Martial, Fontaine, Olivier, Jacques, Fillâtre & Bellec, Fabrice Le, 2020, Phytoseiidae of La Réunion Island (Acari: Mesostigmata): three new species and two males described, new synonymies, and new records, Acarologia 60 (1), pp. 111-195 : 156

Amblyseius longipilus (Kreiter & Ueckermann)

Proprioseiopsis longipilus Kreiter & Ueckermann in Kreiter et al. 2002: 341 .

Amblyseius longipilus, Chant & McMurtry 2004a: 205 ; 2007: 78.

Amblyseius longipilus belongs to the pusillus species group as setae J2 are absent. It was placed in the original description in the genus Proprioseiopsis but the female ventrianal shield is narrow and they are more lightly sclerotized. However, specimens of A. longipilus are brownish in colour (Chant and McMurtry 2004a).

The biology of this species remains totally unknown. A. longipilus has been described previously by Kreiter et al. (2002) from La Réunion but have never been recorded from other countries or record again in La Réunion since its description. So this is the first new record since the original description.

Specimens examined: 3 ♀♀ in total, all measured. Le Tampon – Grand Tampon, Janick Bénard farm (aasl 861 m, Long 55°32’90” E, Lat 21°12’80” S), 1 ♀ on Rubus alceifolius poiret, 7/1/2016; Saint-Pierre – Domaine Vidot (aasl 826 m, Long 55°34’12” E, Lat 21°18’45” S), 1 ♀ on Viburnum tinus L., 18/1/2017; Le Tampon – Grand Tampon (aasl 1100 m, Long 55°32’49” E, Lat 21°16’48” S), 1 ♀ on S. mauritianum , 18/1/2017.

Remarks: the single description available in the literature is the original description of Kreiter et al. (2002). Measurements obtained in this study ( Table 20 ) fit well with those of the original description, except for JV5 that is a far greater in the new specimens collected in this study. JV5 setae were measured 16 (13 – 18) in the original description and this very small size is quite surprising for setae belonging to an Amblyseius species.

We have measured again these setae in 11 specimens, 1 holotype and 10 paratype females and we found 69 (63 – 75) (11), very close to the value for the three specimens found in this study.

The first values published were a mistake of measurements and they must be replaced by value of the table 20.