Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T11:11:44.162Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Generic Concepts in the Family Phytoseiidae (Acarina: Mesostigmata)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

D. A. Chant
D. A. Chant*
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Control, University of California, Riverside
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The family Otopheidomenidae Treat is transferred to the Phytoseiidae Berlese as a subfamily, and the subfamily Macroseiinae Chant et al. is considered as a genus in the subfamily Phytoseiinae. The subfamily Otopheidomeninae contains four genera: Otopheidomenis Treat, Hemipteroseius Evans, Treatia Krantz and Khot, and Entomoseius Nov. The subfamily Phytoseiinae contains 10 genera: Typhlodromus Scheuten, Phytoseius Ribaga, Chantia Pritchard and Baker, Platyseiella Muma, Iphiseius Berlese, Paraamblyseius Muma, Phytoseiulus Evans, Amblyseius Berlese, Macroseius Chant et al., and Gigagnathus Nov. Keys and descriptions of genera are included.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 97 , Issue 4 , April 1965 , pp. 351 - 374
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1965

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

The part of this paper dealing with the subfamily Phytoseiinae was largely completed while the author was on the staff of the Research Laboratory, Canada Department of Agriculture, Vineland-St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada.

2

Taper No. 1578. Contribution from the Department of Biological Control, University of California Citrus Research Center and Agricultural Experiment Station, Riverside, California.

References

Baker, E. W., and Johnston, D. E.. 1959. Laelaptonyssus phytoseioides, a new species of laelaptonyssid mite from Hemiptera. Proc. ent. Soc. Wash. 61: 275–277.Google Scholar
Baker, E. W., and Wharton, G.. 1952. An introduction to acarology. Macmillan, New York.Google Scholar
Berlese, A. 1887. Acari, Myriopoda, et Scorpionidae, Fasc. 41, No. 3. Typis Seminarii, Padua.Google Scholar
Berlese, A. 1915. Acari nuovi. Redia 10: 113–147.Google Scholar
Berlese, A. 1916. Centuria prima di acari nuovi. Redia 12: 19–66.Google Scholar
Berlese, A. 1923. Centuria sesta di acari nuovi. Redia 15: 237–262.Google Scholar
Chant, D. A. 1957a. Descriptions of two new phytoseiid genera (Acarina: Phytoseiidae), with a note on Phytoseius Ribaga, 1902. Canad. Ent. 89: 357–363.Google Scholar
Chant, D. A. 1957b. Note on the status of some genera in the family Phytoseiidae (Acarina). Canad. Ent. 89: 528–532.Google Scholar
Chant, D. A. 1958. Immature and adult stages of some British Phytoseiidae Berl., 1916 (Acarina). J. Linn. Soc. Lond. (Zool.) 43(294): 599–643.Google Scholar
Chant, D. A. 1959. Phytoseiid mites (Acarina: Phytoseiidae). Part I. Bionomics of seven species in southeastern England. Part II. A taxonomic review of the family Phytoseiidae, with descriptions of 38 new species. Canad. Ent. 91, Suppl. 12, 166 pp.Google Scholar
Chant, D. A., and Athias-Henriot, C.. 1960. The genus Phytoseius Ribaga, 1902 (Acarina: Phytoseiidae). Entomophaga 5: 213–228.Google Scholar
Chant, D. A., Denmark, H. A., and Baker, E. W.. 1959. A new subfamily, Macroseiinae Nov., of the family Phytoseiidae (Acarina: Gamasina). Canad. Ent. 91: 808–811.Google Scholar
De Leon, D. 1959a. A new genus and three new species of phytoseiid mites from Mexico with collection records on Phytoseius plumifer (C. & F.) and P. macropilis (Banks). Ent. News 70: 147–152.Google Scholar
De Leon, D. 1959b. Seven new Typhlodromus from Mexico with collection notes on three other species (Acarina: Phytoseiidae). Fla. ent. 42: 113–121.Google Scholar
De Leon, D. 1959c. Two new genera of phytoseiid mites with a note on Proprioseius meridionalis Chant (Acarina: Phytoseiidae). Ent. News 70: 257–262.Google Scholar
Dosse, G. 1961. Über die Bedeutung der Pollennahrung für Typhlodromus (T.) pyri Scheuten (= tiliae Oud.) (Acari, Phytoseiidae). Ent. exp. et applic. 4: 191–195.Google Scholar
Evans, G. O. 1952. On a new predator mite of economic importance. Bull. ent. Res. 43: 397–401.Google Scholar
Evans, G. O. 1963. Observations on the classification of the family Otopheidomenidae (Acari: Mesostigmata) with descriptions of two new species. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (ser. 13), 5: 609–620.Google Scholar
Evans, G. O. 1963a. Observations on the chaetotaxy of the legs in the free-living Gamasina (Acarina: Mesostigmata). Bull. Brit. Mus. (nat. Hist.) 10: 277–303.Google Scholar
Garman, P. 1948. Mite species from apple trees in Connecticut. Bull. Conn. Agric. Exp. Sta. 520, 27 pp.Google Scholar
González, R., and Schuster, R.. 1962. Especies de la familia Phytoseiidae en Chile I (Acarina: Mesostigmata). Bull. Univ. Chile Agric. Exp. Sta. 16: 3–35.Google Scholar
Hirschmann, W. 1957. Gangsystematik der Parasitiformes. Teil I. Rumpbehaarung und Rüchenflachen. Acarologie SchrReihe vergl. Milbenk., Fürth 1: 1–20.Google Scholar
Hirschmann, W. 1962. Gangsystematik der parasitiformes. Teil 5. Rumpbehaarung und Rüchenflachen. Acarologie SchrReihe vergl. Milbenk., Fürth 5: 1–56.Google Scholar
Hughes, A. M. 1948. The mites associated with stored food products. Min. Agric. Fish., Lond.Google Scholar
Karg., , W. 1961. Zur Kenntnis der Typhlodromiden (Acarina: Parasitiformes) aus Acker-und Grünlandböden. Z. angew. Ent. 47: 440–452.Google Scholar
Krantz, G. W., and Khot, N. S.. 1962. A review of the family Otopheidomenidae Treat 1955 (Acarina: Mesostigmata). Acarologia 4: 532–542.Google Scholar
Lindquist, E., and Chant, D. A.. 1964. Redescription of the genus Aceodromus Muma and its transfer to the Blattisociinae (= Aceosejinae) (Acarina: Blattisociidae). Canad. Ent. 96: 500–507.Google Scholar
McMurtry, J. A., and Scriven, G. T.. In press. Studies on the feeding, reproduction, and development of Amblyseius hibisci (Chant) (Acarina: Phytoseiidae) on various food substances. Ann. ent. Soc. Amer.Google Scholar
Mayr, E., Linsley, E. and Usinger, R.. 1953. Methods and principles of systematic zoology. McGraw-Hill Co., New York.Google Scholar
Merwe, G. van der, and Ryke, P. J.. 1963. Key characteristics of the predacious family Phytoseiidae with special reference to the genus Amblyseius Berlese (Acarina). J. ent. Soc. S. Afr. 26: 82–93.Google Scholar
Muma, M. 1955. Phytoseiidae (Acarina) associated with citrus in Florida. Ann. ent. Soc. Amer. 48: 262–272.Google Scholar
Muma, M. 1961. Subfamilies, genera and species of Phytoseiidae (Acarina: Mesostigmata). Fla St. Mus. Bull. Biol. Sci. 5: 267–302.Google Scholar
Muma, M. 1962. New Phytoseiidae (Acarina: Mesostigmata) from Florida. Fla Ent. 45: 1–10.Google Scholar
Nesbitt, H. 1951. A taxonomic study of the Phytoseiinae (family Laelaptidae) predaceous upon Tetranychidae of economic importance. Zool. Verb. 12, 64 pp.Google Scholar
Oudemans, A. C. 1902. New list of Dutch acari. II. Tijdschr. Ent. 45: 1–52.Google Scholar
Oudemans, A. C. 1929. Acarologische Aanteekeningen 99. Ent. Bericht. 8: 11–20.Google Scholar
Pritchard, A., and Baker, E.. 1962. Mites of the family Phytoseiidae from Central Africa, with remarks on the genera of the world. Hilgardia 33: 205–309.Google Scholar
Putman, W. 1962. Life-history and behaviour of the predacious mite Typhlodromus (T.) caudiglans Schuster (Acarina: Phytoseiidae) in Ontario, with notes on prey of related species. Canad. Ent. 94: 163–177.Google Scholar
Ribaga, C. 1904. Gamasidi planticoli. Riv. Path. Veg. 10: 175–178.Google Scholar
Scheuten, A. 1857. Einiges uber Milben. Arch. Naturges. 23: 104–112.Google Scholar
Schuster, R., and Pritchard, E.. 1963. Phytoseiid mites of California. Hilgardia 34: 191–285.Google Scholar
Swirski, E., and Shechter, R.. 1961. Some phytoseiid mites (Acarina: Phytoseiidae) of Hong-Kong, with a description of a new genus and seven new species. Israel J. agric. Res. 11: 97–117.Google Scholar
Treat, A. E. 1955. An ectoparasite (Acarina: Mesostigmata) from moths of the genus Zale. J. Parasitol. 41: 555–561.Google Scholar
Vitzthum, H. 1941. Acarina. In Bronns, H. [ed.], Klassen und Ordnungen des Tierreichs 5, 1011 pp.Google Scholar
Wainstein, B. 1962. Révision du genre Typhlodromus Scheuten, 1857 et systématique de la famille des Phytoseiidae (Berlese, 1916). (Acarina: Parasitiformes). Acarologia 4: 5–30.Google Scholar
Westerboer, I., and Bernhard, F.. 1963. Die Familie Phytoseiidae Berlese, 1916, pp. 451–477. In Stammer, H.-J. (ed.), Beiträge zur Systematik und Ökologie Mitteleuropäischer Acarina. Vol. II. Mesostigmata I. Acad. Verlags., Leipzig.Google Scholar