Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T00:53:22.605Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE DETERMINATION OF SETAL HOMOLOGIES AND SETAL PATTERNS ON THE DORSAL SHIELD IN THE FAMILY PHYTOSEIIDAE (ACARINA: MESOSTIGMATA)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

H. J. Rowell ,
D. A. Chant  and
R. I. C. Hansell
H. J. Rowell
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1Al
D. A. Chant
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1Al
R. I. C. Hansell
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1Al
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The chaetotactic nomenclature proposed by Lindquist and Evans (1965) for the Gamasina, using the family Ascidae as examplar, is adopted for use in the family Phytoseiidae. Probable setal homologies were determined by: examining and comparing ontogenetic relationships in both the Phytoseiidae and Ascidae; standardizing the shape and size of the dorsal shield of exemplars from 7 genera of Phytoseiidae and one of Ascidae in order to compare standardized, transformed setal positions; examining the spatial relationships between setal and pore positions. The technique used to standardize the shape and size of the dorsal shield is described. The setal nomenclature adopted for each of the genera of Phytoseiidae is discussed and presented in diagrammatic form. Ventral chaetotaxy in the Ascidae and Phytoseiidae is also discussed.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 110 , Issue 8 , 01 August 1978 , pp. 859 - 876
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1978

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.)

References

Athias-Henriot, C. 1957. Phytoseiidae et Aceosejidae (Acarina, Gamasina) d'Algérie. I. Genres Blattisocius Keegan, Iphiseius Berlese, Amblyseius Berlese, Phytoseius Ribaga, Phytoseiulus Evans. Bull. Soc. Hist. Nat. Afr. N. 48: 319–352.Google Scholar
Athias-Henriot, C. 1975. Nouvelles notes sur les Amblyseiini I — Le relevé organotaxique de la face dorsale adulte (Gamasides Protoadeniques, Phytoseiidae). Acarologia 17: 20–29.Google Scholar
Chant, D. A. 1958. Immature and adult stages of some British Phytoseiidae Berl., 1916 (Acarina). J. Linnean Soc. Lond. 43(294): 599–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chant, D. A. 1965. The identity and distribution of species of Phytoseius Ribaga (Acarina: Phytoseiidae) in Canada. Can. Ent. 97: 897–909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chant, D. A. and Hansell, R. I. C.. 1971. The genus Amblyseius (Acarina: Phytoseiidae) in Canada and Alaska. Can. J. Zool. 49: 703–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chant, D. A., Hansell, R. I. C., and Yoshida, E.. 1974. The genus Typhlodromus Scheuten (Acarina: Phytoseiidae) in Canada and Alaska. Can. J. Zool. 52: 1265–1291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chant, D. A., Hansell, R. I. C., Rowell, H. J., and Shaul, E. Yoshida. 1978. A study of the family Phytoseiidae (Acarina: Mesostigmata) using the methods of numerical taxonomy. Can. J. Zool. 56: 1330–1347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirschmann, W. 1957. Acarologie. Gangsystematik der Parasitiformes. Teil 1. Gamasiden. Fürth/Bay. pp. 1–20, I–V pp., 26 pl.Google Scholar
Lindquist, E. E. and Evans, G. O.. 1965. Taxonomic concepts in the Ascidae, with a modified setal nomenclature for the idiosoma of the Gamasina (Acarina: Mesostigmata). Mem. ent. Soc. Can. 47. 64 pp.Google Scholar
McMurtry, J. A. 1977. Description and biology of Tryphlodromus persianus n. sp., from Iran, with notes on T. kettaneki (Acari: Mesostigmata: Phytoseiidae). Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 70: 563–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar