Typhlodromalus peregrinus (Muma)
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.24349/acarologia/20214414 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/A60987F6-FFFE-A37F-FE4C-BB666F589911 |
treatment provided by |
Marcus |
scientific name |
Typhlodromalus peregrinus (Muma) |
status |
|
Typhlodromalus peregrinus (Muma) View in CoL
Typhlodromalus primulae (Chant)
Typhlodromalus robiniae (Chant) Typhlodromalus sextus (Garman)
Typhlodromalus aripo (De Leon)
Material Examined (n=29; 29 ♀♀) — 2♀ (29°32 ′ 35.80 ″ N, 82°5 ′ 7.34 ″ W, 28 m,
11 August 2016, Natchez, Organic Farm), 1♀ (29°24 ′ 30.77 ″ N, 82°10 ′ 16.13 ″ W, 19 m, Choctaw, Organic Farm), 2♀♀ (31°22 ′ 49.19 ″ N, 83°19 ′ 8.57 ″ W, 89 m, 18 August 2016, Natchez, Conventional Farm), 1♀ (29°24 ′ 30.77 ″ N, 82°10 ′ 16.13 ″ W, 19 m, 22 August 2016, Choctaw, Organic Farm), 2♀♀ (28°34 ′ 5.62 ″ N, 81°41 ′ 22.17 ″ W, 24 m, 25 August 2016, Von, Organic Farm), 1♀ Natchez, 1♀ Osage, 1♀ Ouachita (29°32 ′ 35.80 ″ N, 82°5 ′ 7.34 ″ W, 28 m,
20 September 2016, Organic Farm), 1♀ Natchez, 2♀♀ Osage, 2♀♀ Ouachita (28°34 ′ 5.62 ″ N, 81°41 ′ 22.17 ″ W, 24 m, 21 September 2016 Organic Farm), 1♀ (30°54 ′ 18.31 ″ N, 82°38 ′ 51.06 ″
W, 46 m, 22 September 2016, Ouachita, Conventional Farm), 8♀♀ Natchez, 1♀ Osage, 3♀♀ Ouachita (31°22 ′ 49.19 ″ N, 83°19 ′ 8.57 ″ W, 89 m, 22 September 2016, Conventional Farm). Comments — According to Demite et al. (2020), to date, T. peregrinus was reported from
18 countries including the US. In the USA, it was detected in Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts, Missouri, New, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas,
and Virginia ( Demite et al. 2020). It was generally found on citrus ( Childers 1994 ; Fadamiro et al. 2008, 2009 ; Muma 1955a, 1967 ; Pena 1992 ; Villanueva and Childers 2004, 2005) and solanaceous plants ( Fiaboe et al. 2007 ; McMurtry 1983 ; Silva et al. 2016). This species was also collected from ground cover vegetation (weeds) of Alabama ( Fadamiro et al. 2008,
2009) and Florida ( Childers and Denmark 2011) citrus orchards ( Kreiter et al. 2018). Vieira de Souza et al. (2015) detected it on Cocos nucifera (L.) ( Arecaceae ), Theobroma cacao L. ( Malvaceae ), Psidium guajava L. ( Myrtaceae ), Carica papaya L. ( Caricaceae ). It was also found on Alchornea triplinervea (Spreng.) Müll.Arg. (Euphorbiaceae) by Zacarias and De Moreas (2001). Kreiter et al. (2018) collected this species from Neonotonia wightii (Wight and Arn.) Pueraria phaseoloides (Roxb.) Macroptilium atropurpureum (DC.) (Fabaceae) and Paspalum notatum Flügge cv. Pensacola ( Poaceae ). However, according to Demite et al. (2020), there is no known record on Rubus spp. This species was associated with many insect and mite species by different researchers. While Aleyrodidae , Coccidae and Tetranychidae were evaluated as optimal prey for this species by Muma (1971), Childers and Denmark
(2011) indicated that this species is a predator of thrips. According to Muma (1955b, 1971),
it is a facultative predator of Chrysomphalum aonidum (L) and Lepidosaphes beckii (Newn.) ( Hemiptera : Diaspididae ) ( Pena et al. 1989). It was also collected from miners of Phyllocnistis citrella Stainton ( Lepidoptera : Gracillariidae ) and whitefly exuvia, empty scale armour, clump, dead scale insects, sooty mold ( Childers 1994 ; Muma 1967 ; Villanueva and Childers 2011). It was found associated with Panonychus citri (McGregor) , Eotetranychus sexmaculatus (Riley) ( Trombidiformes : Tetranychidae ), Parlatoria pergandii Comstock ( Hemiptera : Diaspididae ) ( Muma 1969), Phyllocoptruta oleivora (Ashmead) ( Trombidiformes : Eriophyidae ) ( Pena, 1992 ; Kretier et al., 2018). Silva et al. (2016) noted that this predator also was able to feed on all stages of P. latus . Immature stages of P. citri , all stages of T. urticae , and pollens of Malephora crocea (Jacq.) Schwant (Aizoaceae) , Quercus virginiana Miller (Fagaceae) , and Typha latifolia L. ( Typhaceae ) were evaluated as suitable diet in the laboratory by Fouly et al. (1995). In the present study, T. peregrinus was found together with populations of P. latus , E. carpini , T. bilobatus , T. confusus , T. schoenei and T. urticae .
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 |
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |