Typhlodromus (Anthoseius) halinae (Wainstein & Kolodochka)

Tixier, Marie-Stephane, Auger, Philippe, Migeon, Alain, Douin, Martial, Fossoud, Amandine, Navajas, Maria & Arabuli, Tea, 2021, Integrated taxonomy supports the identification of some species of Phytoseiidae (Acari: Mesostigmata) from Georgia, Acarologia 61 (4), pp. 824-844 : 836-838

Typhlodromus (Anthoseius) halinae (Wainstein & Kolodochka)

Anthoseius (Amblydromellus) halinae Wainstein & Kolodochka (1974) : 629.

Anthoseius halinae, Rivnay & Swirski (1980) : 177.

Amblydromella halinae, Moraes et al. (1986) : 163.

Amblydromella (Amblydromella) halinae, Kolodochka (1998) : 52.

Amblydromella (Aphanoseia) halinae , Denmark & Welbourn (2002): 308.

Specimens examined. At Terjola (Chognari) (42.2305° N, 42.7781° E): 3 ♀♀ on Rubus sp. (Rosaceae) .

Previous records. Iran, Italy, Moldova, Norway, Russia, Slovakia, Ukraine.

Measurements of female. One specimen: voucher molecular specimen in the “best” state, the two other specimens are also voucher specimens and not all the characters can be measured.

Dorsum. Dorsal shield 310 long and 140 wide, reticulated throughout, five solenostomes not well visible (gd2, gd4, gd6, gd8 and gd9), 18 pairs of dorsal setae and two pairs of sublateral setae: j1 23, j3 20, j4 15, j5 13, j6 18, J2 20, J5 5, z2 20, z3 25, z4 20, z5 13, Z4 25, Z5 43, s4 25, s6 25, S2 30, S4 25, S5 20, r3 23 and R1 23 in length. All setae smooth.

Peritreme. Extending forwards between the bases of the setae j3 and j1.

Venter. Sternal shield with three pairs of setae and two pairs of poroids; one pair of sternal setae (st4) on small metasternal platelets; posterior margin straight. Distances between st1–st3 50, st2–st2 55, st5–st5 53. Two pairs of metapodal plates, the largest one 25 long and 3 wide, the smallest one 13 long and 2 wide. Ventrianal shield with four pairs of pre-anal setae JV1, JV2, JV3, ZV2 and a pair of small circular pre-anal pores (gv3) present (horizontally aligned with JV3 and vertically aligned with JV2). Integument surrounding ventrianal shield with three pairs of setae ZV1, ZV3 and JV5 ; ventrianal shield 88 long, 88 wide at level of anterior corners,

and 75 wide at level of anus. JV5 33 long.

Legs. Legs IV with one macroseta on the basitarsus (23), and setae (not macrosetae) on the genu (18), tarsus (20). Genu II with seven setae (2–2/0, 2/0–1), Genu III with seven setae

(1–2/0, 2/1–1).

Chelicera. Fixed digit 25 long; and movable digit 23 long. Dentition not visible because chelicerae closed.

Spermatheca. Spermatheca with cervix 15–18 long (on the two sides) and 10 wide, with an atrium inserted in the cervix.

Remarks. The specimen studied is morphologically close to Typhlodromus (Anthoseius)

rhenanus (Oudemans) , even if some differences are observed in spermatheca shape (Table

3). Molecular comparisons with specimens from our own database show high CytB distances between the sequences herein obtained and those referring to T. (A.) rhenanus (19.6% – 20.3%).

Similar high distances have been previously observed at the intraspecific level (i.e. Tixier et al. 2017, 2019). However, for the COI fragment, 22% divergence was observed between T.

(A.) rhenanus and our specimens. Such large divergences indicate that these specimens do not belong to T. (A.) rhenanus , but to a morphologically similar species.

They are also close to T. (A.) georgicus Wainstein , but difference in spermatheca shape and

S5 length (30 for T. (A.) georgicus and 20 for the presently examined specimen) ( Hajizadeh and Mortazavi 2015) seem to show that the specimen observed do not belong to this latter species. It is difficult to assign a single specimen to a species. Tixier (2013) tried to provide some decision rules and proposed based on statistical analysis, that a difference of 11 microns between two specimens would be sufficient to conclude that these specimens might belong to different species. We see that in the present case the difference between the specimen examined and T. (A.) georgicus (10 microns) would be just included in this interspecific variation.

However, because of this slight difference, we can have still some doubts. Considering other species, especially Typhlodromus (Anthoseius) halinae , it seems that the specimen observed is much closer to this latter species than to T. (A.) georgicus . However, the specimens were also morphologically very close to Typhlodromus (Anthoseius) salviae (Kolodochka) but unfortunately we did not find in the description of this latter species, information on the differentiation with T. (A.) halinae ( Table 3).

Even if some doubts exist between an identification assigned T. to (A.) halinae or to T. (A.)

georgicus, because of closer morphological traits with the former species, we considered that the specimen herein collected belong to T. (A.) halinae . Molecular sequences would help in assisting the diagnosis of these morphological close species in the future, as well as in clarifying the fact that some authors stated that differentiation between some Typhlodromus (Anthoseius)

species is only possible based on male observation ( Kolodochka 1978). This would be the first report of T. (A.) halinae from Georgia. Because of its current distribution in Eastern Europe and Middle East, the report of the species in Georgia is not surprising.