Zootaxa 4500 (4): 451–507 ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) Article ZOOTAXA http://www.mapress.com/j/zt/ Copyright © 2018 See end page footer ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4500.4.1 http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:16A34E21-D55D-40E9-BF2D-43D3BD8A6AF2 Acarine biocontrol agents Neoseiulus californicus sensu Athias-Henriot (1977) and N. barkeri Hughes (Mesostigmata: Phytoseiidae) redescribed, their synonymies assessed, and the identity of N. californicus (McGregor) clarified based on examination of types FRÉDÉRIC BEAULIEU1 & JENNIFER J. BEARD2 1Canadian National Collection of Insects, Arachnids and Nematodes, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, K.W. Neatby bldg., 960 Carling avenue, Ottawa, ON, K1A 0C6, Canada. E-mail: [email protected] 2Queensland Museum, P.O. Box 3300, South Brisbane, 4101, Queensland, Australia. E-mail: [email protected] Abstract In 1954, McGregor described two species of phytoseiids from lemon, in California, USA: Typhlodromus californicus McGregor and T. mungeri McGregor, the former represented by one male, and the latter by two females. Since its descrip- tion, T. mungeri was synonymised under T. californicus, and the name T. (now Neoseiulus) californicus has been used extensively to represent a species that is now commonly used as a biocontrol agent of crop pests worldwide. However, the true identity of the biocontrol agent is uncertain because the original descriptions of T. californicus and T. mungeri were not adequate enough to allow an irrefutable identification, with each description being based on specimens of a single sex. An examination of the types of N. californicus and N. mungeri revealed that they are morphologically identical to the male and female of N. barkeri Hughes, 1948, respectively, and that they are in fact junior synonyms of N. barkeri—and are therefore distinct from the biocontrol agent globally called N. californicus (sensu Athias-Henriot, 1977; see Griffiths, 2015). This is further supported by a comparison with male and female syntypes of N. barkeri, as well as other specimens of N. barkeri including some collected from the type host in the vicinity of the type location (i.e. lemon in southern Cali- fornia, 1952–1958). We redescribe the male and female of both N. barkeri and N. californicus sensu Athias-Henriot (1977), based on representative specimens from at least 14 and 19 populations, respectively. Based on examination of types, we confirm the synonymy of N. mckenziei (Schuster & Pritchard, 1963), N. picketti (Specht, 1968), and N. oahuen- sis (Prasad, 1968) with N. barkeri, and that the names N. chilenensis (Dosse, 1958b) and N. wearnei (Schicha, 1987) rep- resent the same species as N. californicus sensu Athias-Henriot (1977). We also provide a hypothesis as to why Chant (1959) had erroneously synonymised T. californicus and T. mungeri under T. marinus (Willmann). Finally, we suggest maintaining the prevailing usage of the name N. californicus (McGregor) for the species concept of Athias-Henriot (1977) as followed by subsequent authors, through submission of a separate application to the International Commission of Zo- ological Nomenclature (ICZN). In the meantime, the current meaning of N. californicus should be maintained until a rul- ing by the ICZN is made on the application. Key words: Acari, predatory mites, Amblyseiinae, Neoseiulus chilenensis, Neoseiulus mungeri, Neoseiulus wearnei Introduction The name Neoseiulus californicus currently represents a species of biological control agent that is commercially available worldwide. Due to its economic significance, this species has been the focus of both taxonomic and ecological research in many countries across the world (e.g. Oatman et al., 1977; Raworth et al., 1994; Gotoh et al., 2004; Tixier et al., 2008; Mendel & Schausberger, 2011; Xu et al., 2013; Döker et al., 2016; Song et al., 2016; Toldi et al., 2016; Khanamani et al., 2017; Zheng et al., 2017). However, there remains an element of confusion as to the true identity of this animal (Griffiths, 2015). From its original description by McGregor (1954) to the more recent descriptions by Xu et al. (2013), a significant amount of morphological variation has been recorded for this taxon, which suggests that more than one species is represented by the name N. californicus (Xu et al., 2013; Accepted by B. Halliday: 27 JuL. 2018; published: 18 Oct. 2018 451 Griffiths, 2015). More importantly, however, the original description of N. californicus by McGregor does not actually match any of the descriptions of the animal being used as a biocontrol agent; and yet despite this, the biocontrol agent continues to be nearly universally accepted to represent the taxon N. californicus (McGregor). Xu et al. (2013) stated that “Obviously, N. californicus sensu McGregor (1954) looks more like N. barkeri than N. californicus sensu Athias-Henriot (1977)”. Griffiths (2015) provided a detailed analysis of the species concepts and descriptions associated with the name N. californicus, and concluded that the taxon represented by N. californicus sensu Athias-Henriot (1977), i.e. the well-known biocontrol agent “N. californicus”, is morphologically distinct from the taxon N. californicus (McGregor, 1954). We believe the initial error occurred in 1963, when Schuster & Pritchard (1963) applied the name N. californicus to a species other than N. californicus (McGregor). The Schuster & Pritchard species, like the original N. californicus and its putative synonym N. mungeri (McGregor), was collected from lemon in southern California. Following this, Athias-Henriot (1977) redescribed and illustrated “Cydnodromus californicus (McGregor)” based on females from California, Chile, France and the Maghreb, which were morphologically similar to Schuster & Pritchard’s N. californicus. The species that was described by Athias- Henriot (1977) is currently accepted worldwide to represent the taxon N. californicus (Tixier et al., 2008; Xu et al., 2013; Griffiths, 2015). Griffiths’ (2015) analysis also suggests that N. mungeri is distinct from N. californicus sensu McGregor, and that N. californicus sensu Athias-Henriot (1977) is distinct from N. chilenensis (Dosse, 1958b), an otherwise long-recognised synonym of N. californicus. The types of N. californicus (a male) and N. mungeri (two female syntypes) had not been located until recently, when they were found at the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, in New Haven, USA, the institute in which Philipp Garman worked. Herein, we clarify the identity of N. californicus and N. mungeri by comparing (1) the types and the original descriptions with (2) male and female specimens that we have identified as N. californicus sensu Athias-Henriot (1977) and subsequent authors (e.g. Tixier et al., 2014; Xu et al., 2013); (3) syntype male and female specimens of N. barkeri; (4) various male and female specimens that we identified as N. barkeri, including one male and five females with collection data similar to that of the types of N. californicus and N. mungeri, and previously identified as “T. californicus”, “fallacis?”, “marinus”, “T. mungeri”, and “T. mungeri?”, by E.A. McGregor himself (based on handwriting comparisons) or by P. Garman; and (5) type specimens of three putative synonyms of N. barkeri, N. mckenziei (Schuster & Pritchard, 1963), N. picketti (Specht, 1968), and N. oahuensis (Prasad, 1968). In addition, we studied type specimens of N. chilenensis and specimens with the same or similar collection data as the holotype of N. wearnei, to confirm whether these two names represent the same species as the biocontrol agent N. californicus sensu Athias-Henriot (1977). After our taxonomic analysis presented here, we outline an approach for resolving this nomenclature problem, which will avoid disruption of nomenclatural stability. We also provide redescriptions of N. barkeri and N. californicus sensu Athias-Henriot (1977), and highlight the extent of intraspecific variability in the shape of their spermathecal apparatus, which we suggest is in most part due to how the spermathecae are positioned within three-dimensional space after the specimen is slide-mounted. Key historical events surrounding the name N. californicus (McGregor) (see also Xu et al. (2013) and Griffiths (2015) for additional accounts of the taxonomic history of N. californicus) 1948. Hughes (1948) described Neoseiulus barkeri based on many individuals collected from germinating barley at the London Docks (England). The mite possibly originated from a geographic region other than England, as suggested by its association with imported stored products and anthropogenic habitats (Nesbitt, 1951; Hughes, 1976). 1954. McGregor (1954) described two phytoseiid species from lemon fruit, in Whittier, California, USA, i.e. Typhlodromus californicus McGregor (based on a single male), and T. mungeri (based on two females). Both species were collected by F. Munger, on 16 January and 17 February 1953, respectively. Although McGregor placed them in the genus Typhlodromus at that time, it is clear that they are actually Neoseiulus. 1956. McGregor (1956) listed mite species found on citrus trees in Southern California, including 15 phytoseiids, among which were T. californicus, T. (Iphidulus) mungeri, and T. fallacis. There are two significant details to note here. Firstly, McGregor wrote the following regarding the specimen of T. fallacis: “Regarding this mite, Garman stated that it is probably fallacis, but that it differs from the latter, as figured in certain details”. 452 · Zootaxa 4500 (4) © 2018 See end page footer BEAULIEU & BEARD Secondly, McGregor stated that a specimen of T. californicus McGregor is also present on the same slide as the T. fallacis specimen, without noting the sex of either specimen (the details given by McGregor for that slide are comparable with those of a slide that we examined with a male and a female N. barkeri: slide lot #3, Fig. 1c; see p. 469 for more information). 1957–1961. Athias-Henriot (1957: 216) recorded T. mungeri from Algeria, placing it in the cucumeris group of Typhlodromus. She then mentions T. mungeri from Algeria, three times again, but as Amblyseius mungeri or A. cf. mungeri (Athias-Henriot, 1958: 28; 1959: 145; 1960: 102). However, she later (Athias-Henriot, 1961: 440) re-identified the same A. mungeri specimens from her 1959 paper as Amblyseius barkeri (Hughes). This change in identification was noted by de Moraes et al. (2004) and again by Xu et al. (2013). 1958. Dosse (1958b) described a mite, Typhlodromus (now Neoseiulus) chilenensis, from the subaquatic plant water hyacinth, Eichhornia crassipes (Pontederiaceae), growing in a greenhouse (see Dosse 1958b: 48), from Valparaíso, Chile. Dosse noted a strong similarity between N. chilenensis and N. cucumeris. 1959. Chant (1959: 79) concluded, based on his examination of McGregor’s type specimens, that T. californicus (male) and T. mungeri (females) represent the same species. He then synonymised these two taxa under the name T. marinus (Willmann, 1952) (originally described from soil in Germany). He considered the T. californicus male to be identical with the male of T. marinus, and that the females of T. mungeri and T. marinus differed only slightly in their ‘coxal glands’ (= spermathecal apparatus). Chant dismissed these differences as possible artefacts of slide mounting. 1963. Schuster & Pritchard (1963: 271) described a mite collected from citrus and pecan litter (from Riverside and San Diego, California, 1958) under the name Amblyseius californicus (McGregor), as a “new combination”. This represents the first description of a female under the name A. californicus (acknowledged in Ragusa & Vargas, 2002). However, although accepting Chant’s synonymy of A. mungeri under A. californicus, Schuster & Pritchard rejected his proposed synonymy of these same names under “A. marinus” because “the females of the California populations bear no close resemblance to Chant’s illustration of the female of A. marinus”, and because the ventrianal shield of the male as illustrated by Chant for A. marinus lacked the crescentic pores (gv3) that were conspicuous in males and females of their own specimens. They did not examine any types of the species involved. In addition to Chant (1959) and Schuster & Pritchard (1963), other authors (e.g. McMurtry, 1977; Chant & McMurtry, 2003; Tixier et al., 2008) also recognised N. californicus as a senior synonym of N. mungeri, apparently accepting Chant’s 1959 statement, with no indication that they examined any type specimens either. 1977. Athias-Henriot (1977) described (in a key) and illustrated the female of a species under the name Cydnodromus californicus (McGregor, 1954), based on specimens from France, California, Chile and the Maghreb, without providing any comparison with, or mention of, the descriptions of either McGregor (1954) or Schuster & Pritchard (1963). Why she identified her specimens as C. californicus is unclear; however, the most plausible explanation is that she considered the females she examined to be similar enough to the illustrations of Schuster & Pritchard (1963) of A. californicus to consider them to be the same species. Although she did not provide any comment on the synonymy of N. mungeri and N. californicus, it is implied that she accepted the synonymy because she based her description on female specimens only, even though N. californicus was described from a male. However, Ragusa & Athias-Henriot (1983) listed N. mungeri as species incertae sedis, based on inadequate illustrations. Athias-Henriot (1959) had noted the similarity in the descriptions of the male of A. californicus and the female of A. mungeri provided by McGregor (notably their short dorsal setae and well-developed macroseta on tarsus IV), but also mentioned the “doubtful” identity of A. californicus, and that its original description and that of A. mungeri were not detailed enough to permit a synonymy to be established. Several further redescriptions of N. californicus have been made since, and are essentially compatible with the Athias-Henriot (1977) description (see Xu et al., 2013 for a listing of most of those redescriptions; see also Demite et al., 2017). Athias-Henriot (1977) considered Neoseiulus chilenensis to be a putative synonym of N. californicus because she could not find morphological differences between populations from Chile and elsewhere (see also pers. comm. in McMurtry, 1977). This synonymy was also suggested in Chant & McMurtry (2003: 21, as “=chilinensis?” (sic)), and accepted more formally by others (McMurtry & Badii, 1989; Tixier et al., 2008), or at least not challenged (El-Banhawy, 1979; Jung et al., 2006; McMurtry & Croft, 1997; Guanilo et al., 2008a; Guanilo et al., 2008b: see also de Moraes et al., 2004). However, Chant & McMurtry (2007) later list N. NEOSEIULUS CALIFORNICUS Zootaxa 4500 (4) © 2018 See end page footer · 453 chilenensis separately to N. californicus, and more recently Griffiths (2015) stated that it does not seem possible to declare beyond reasonable doubt that N. chilenensis and N. californicus sensu Athias-Henriot (1977) are the same species. It should be noted that none of the redescriptions of N. californicus or claims of synonymies with N. chilenensis were based on examination of type specimens. 1989. McMurtry & Badii (1989) performed reproductive compatibility experiments between populations from California, Peru and Chile, which further supported the synonymy of N. chilenensis and N. californicus. The significance of these experiments was challenged by Griffiths (2015). 2002. Ragusa & Vargas (2002: 135) made notes on “Cydnodromus californicus (McGregor), 1954 sensu Athias- Henriot, 1977”, and stated, seemingly for the first time, that there are several discrepancies between the descriptions of females of A. mungeri by McGregor (1954), of A. californicus by Schuster & Pritchard (1963), and the identifying characters mentioned in the key for C. californicus by Athias-Henriot (1977). The most evident discrepancy was “the number of teeth stated in the text or illustrated (1, 2 or 3)”, apparently referring to the number of teeth on the cheliceral movable digit. Based on a personal communication with D.A. Chant, Ragusa & Vargas (2002) stated that the types of californicus and mungeri were last reported to be in the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History, in 1957; however, they did not find them there. 2008. Tixier et al. (2008) redescribed “N. californicus”, apparently conspecific with N. californicus sensu Athias- Henriot (1977), based on ten populations originating from nine countries around the world (Europe: France, Spain, Greece, Italy; Africa: Tunisia; South America: Chile, Brazil; North America: California; Asia: Japan). Eight of these populations were from cultivated plants (common bean, strawberry, eggplant), one from an agricultural weed (Convolvulus arvensis L.), and one from a laboratory culture (from California). Although the specimens from Chile had longer dorsal setae on average, the morphometric analyses essentially showed a moderate to large overlap in all character measurements among the populations examined, thus supporting the hypothesis of conspecificity amongst them. The molecular studies of Okassa et al. (2011) and Guichou et al. (2010) further strengthened the hypothesis of conspecificity of N. californicus populations worldwide. Tixier et al. (2008) also redescribed N. marinus (Willmann, 1952) based on type specimens, and compared it morphometrically with their specimens of N. californicus to conclude that these two species, along with another closely related species, N. ornatus (Athias-Henriot, 1957), are all valid and distinct species. Their description of N. marinus is consistent with that of Evans (1987). 2013. Xu et al. (2013) redescribed N. californicus based on a population from Eriobotrya japonica (Rosaceae) (loquat) in southern China, and found some characters (e.g. dimensions of calyx of spermathecal apparatus, distance between gland openings gv3 on ventrianal shield) that distinguish this Chinese population of N. californicus from others elsewhere in the world (Europe, USA, South America, Japan, including California and Chile vouchers of McMurtry & Badii (1989)). They also noted that the true N. californicus may be distinct from those populations sold worldwide as biocontrol agents, and is more similar to N. barkeri than to N. californicus sensu Athias-Henriot (1977). A molecular study by Lv et al. (2016) supported the conspecificity of the southern China N. californicus population with populations from around the world. They also suggested that this Chinese population is native to the region in southern China (Lv et al., 2016). 2014. Tixier et al. (2014) suggested that N. wearnei (Schicha, 1987), originally described from Australia, based on mites found on plant material (Chondrilla juncea L. (Asteraceae)) imported from France, is a junior synonym of N. californicus, based on morphometric and molecular analyses of populations from South Australia and around the world. They also wrote that specimens from California “could be considered as the neotypes” for N. californicus; however, because no single specimen was specifically designated, it does not represent a valid neotype designation. Furthermore, the discovery of the type specimen of N. californicus (this paper) invalidates any previous neotype designation. 2015. Griffiths (2015) reviewed the conundrum surrounding the identity of N. californicus and made the hypothesis that a ‘complex’ of six distinct species exists: T. californicus sensu McGregor (1954), T. mungeri, T. chilenensis, A. californicus sensu Schuster & Pritchard (1963), A. californicus sensu Çakmak & Çobanoğlu (2006), and N. californicus sensu Athias-Henriot (1977). He also felt that the latter species represents the same species as both N. californicus sensu Tixier et al. (2008) and N. wearnei. Griffiths (2015) was the first to point out that the (male) ventrianal shield in the original description of N. californicus McGregor (1954) has four pairs of pre-anal setae, whereas the ventrianal shield of males associated with females compatible with N. californicus sensu Athias-Henriot (1977) have only three pairs (Papadoulis et al., 2009; Xu et al., 2013). 454 · Zootaxa 4500 (4) © 2018 See end page footer BEAULIEU & BEARD Material and methods The original descriptions of N. californicus and N. mungeri, particularly the illustrations therein, were scrutinised to find similarities/differences with other species descriptions and specimens examined. Details of the specimens examined are presented in Table 1. These details include collection data and previous identifications (“Original det. label” in Table) as indicated on the slide labels. The specimens are classified in Table 1 as per the species name that we assigned to the specimens after examination (under “Species (our det.)”). Mite specimens were studied at 400x and 1000x magnification using compound microscopes (Leica DM5500B and Nikon Eclipse 80i microscope) equipped with differential interference contrast (DIC), connected to a computer and a digital camera (Leica DFC420 and Nikon Digital Sight DS-Fi1, respectively), allowing the capture of images as well as magnified viewing on a computer screen of the slide-mounted specimen (“live feed”). Images were captured via the Leica Application Suite (LAS) software 4.2 and Nikon DS Camera Control Unit DS-L2. Calibrated measurements of morphological features (see below) were taken using the Live Measurements and Interactive Measurements modules of the LAS software, as well as with a calibrated graticule. Captured digital photos were modified in Photoshop CS5 Extended Version 12.0 x32 (© 1990–2010 Adobe Systems Inc.) to improve contrast and clarity of structures using “levels” and “curves” adjustments. In many cases, the single images presented actually represent a montage (merging) of several photos of the morphological feature taken at different focal depths, using Helicon Focus 5.3.14 (© Helicon Soft Ltd., 2000–2013). Illustrations of structures of selected specimens were made using Adobe Illustrator CS5 Version 15.0.0 (© 1987–2010 Adobe Systems Inc.) by tracing characters of interest over digital photos of specimens imported into the software. Tracing was made to represent the feature on the specimens as realistically as possible, including setae; however, in the few cases in which a seta was positioned in a way that could confuse the interpretation of other structures beneath, that seta was drawn at a different angle to increase clarity and avoid masking structures. In order to test the conspecificity of specimens examined, to test putative synonymies, and to strengthen species redescriptions, morphometrics were obtained from: specimens identified as N. barkeri; type specimens of N. californicus, N. mungeri, N. barkeri and putative synonyms (N. mckenziei, N. picketti, N. oahuensis; see Table 1 for repositories); specimens identified as N. californicus sensu Athias-Henriot (1977) and of its putative synonyms N. wearnei and N. chilenensis. Morphometrics include: dorsal shield length from anterior shield margin, including region anterior to j1 (variously fused with peritrematal elements), to posterior shield margin; dorsal shield width where broadest, at level near that of S2 for females, and between R1 and S2 for males; length of all 19 dorsal idiosomal setae, as well as ventral setae st1–5, JV1–2, JV4–5, ZV1–3, postanal and para-anal setae; distances between pairs of dorsal setae j1, j5, z5, j6, and between j5 and j6, as well as between pairs of ventral setae st2, st3, st5, JV2, and between st1 and st3 (distances measured from the centre of setal sockets); ventrianal shield length and widths (length along midline; width where broadest, anteriorly; and at level of para-anal setae); distance between centre of gland openings gv3; sternal shield width (measured at narrowest point, level with coxae II; length of ‘macroseta’ on leg IV basitarsus (pd3, ‘StIV’), as well as ad1 on tibia IV and genu IV; length of cheliceral movable digit (see Fig. 16f), number of teeth on the fixed digit (including alignment of teeth); entire length of corniculi, from apex to internal base (which is more discernable than external base and provides a more reliable measurement). In addition, structures of the spermatodactyl were measured for males: the length of the shaft (from junction with chelicera, past the membranous region, to apical margin of foot, or more precisely of the heel for N. californicus sensu Athias-Henriot), and the length of the entire foot, from tip of heel to tip of toe (Beard, 2001). Certain characters were also measured for females only: length of primary metapodal platelet; spermathecal calyx depth (length; see Fig. 17u), along midline from atrium to level with limits of sclerotisation of calyx (excluding membranous vesicle that encloses spermatophore); calyx width across maximal diameter, i.e. at distal limits of sclerotisation; and atrium length and width (Fig. 17u). Measurements in micrometres (μm) are given as ranges (minimum to maximum) when more than one specimen was examined or more than one value (e.g. the length of two setae of the same pair on one specimen) was obtained. In some instances, averages ± standard deviations are presented. In addition, certain morphometric ratios (e.g. dorsal shield length / width; Z5 length / dorsal shield length; j1–j1 distance / j1 length; distance of insertion of setae Z1 and S2 to dorsal shield margin / shield width) were obtained from specimens. Morphological terminology follows Beard (2001) as modified from various authors, primarily Lindquist & Evans (1965) and Rowell et al. (1978) for shields and idiosomal chaetotaxy; Evans (1963) for leg chaetotaxy, with a slight modification introduced by Rowell & Chant (1979) for the notation of tibia NEOSEIULUS CALIFORNICUS Zootaxa 4500 (4) © 2018 See end page footer · 455 II setae; Schuster & Smith (1960) for spermathecal apparatus, with modification of the term ‘cervix’ to ‘calyx’ by Athias-Henriot (1971b; in French: ‘calice’), Ragusa & Athias-Henriot (1983) and Evans (1992); Beard (2001) for spermatodactyl, as modified from De Leon (1961) and Schicha (1987); Athias-Henriot (1975) and Athias-Henriot (1971a) for dorso-idiosomal and ventro-idiosomal adenotaxy and poroidotaxy, respectively; for additional gland openings that were not determined by Athias-Henriot (1975) (idR3, gd10, gvb, gc), we used notations developed by Lindquist & Moraza (2009), Evans & Fain (1995), Makarova (2003), and Kazemi et al. (2014), respectively. Note that Beard (2001) presented a synopsis (illustration) of the notation for dorsal adeno- and poroidotaxy, which was used by many subsequent authors; however, two poroids (id5 and idl1) of Athias-Henriot (1975) were named differently (id1a and idl2 respectively) in Beard (2001). Herein, we use Athias-Henriot (1975)’s original notation. Note that the notation for some poroids (idm series; idl1) in Athias-Henriot (1975) were, based on the text, apparently named differently in some of her subsequent papers (particularly Ragusa & Athias-Henriot, 1983). We refrained from adopting those changes, largely because the authors neither specified that they were providing adjustments to Athias-Henriot’s (1975) notation system (they state only that their terminology was based on her 1975 paper), nor provided explanations for the changes. All specimens examined are kept at the CNC and QM, except a few that were borrowed from ANIC, AQIS, NHMUK, CAES, SMNG, and USNM (see Table 1, and table footnote for institution details). The position and identity of gland openings gd3 and gd4 on male phytoseiids need to be clarified. On some phytoseiid males, gland openings gd3 may be confused with, and misidentified as, gd4, because they have a similar position on the dorsal shield. The potential mistake only becomes obvious on a male with both gland openings present, as is the case with the males of some Neoseiulus species and other Amblyseiinae. In such cases, gland opening gd4 is present posterior (or posterolateral) to seta s4, and gd3 is lateral (or posterolateral) to s4 on or near the shield margin (e.g. Amblyseius andersoni (Chant), N. nescapi (Chant & Hansell), N. sioux (Chant & Hansell), N. kennetti (Schuster & Pritchard)) (Beaulieu pers. obs.). In contrast, the females of these same species have gd4 on the dorsal shield, but gd3 is on the peritrematal shield, posterior to poroid id3 (as is typical for the females of Gamasina; Athias-Henriot, 1975, Swirski et al., 1998, Kazemi et al., 2014; but see also Athias-Henriot, 1971). Occasionally, gd3 is not captured by the peritrematal shield, and is located on a discrete minute platelet in the soft cuticle between the dorsal and peritrematal shields. This led us to conclude that the gland opening positioned on shield margin, posterolateral to s4 in the males of N. californicus sensu Athias-Henriot is actually gd3, not gd4, and that gd4 is actually absent in this species (Fig. 29) (see also relative positions of gd3–4 in Athias-Henriot, 1971a). The identification of gd3 on the dorsal shield of male N. fallacis by Tsolakis & Ragusa (2016) supports our view. Note that, when present, the position of gd4 can vary significantly between species (e.g. from posteriad to posterolaterad of s4; Ferragut & Navia, 2015). Abbreviations: “Nc-McG” is used to refer to the species originally described as N. californicus by McGregor, whereas “Nc-AH” refers to N. californicus (McGregor) as described by Athias-Henriot (1977) and subsequent authors (when the description is compatible with that of Athias-Henriot (1977)). Observations and evidence The type specimens of Neoseiulus californicus (McGregor) and N. mungeri (McGregor). We have only recently (May 2017) found the type specimens of N. californicus and N. mungeri at the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station (USA), thanks to the efforts of Gale Ridge, the curator of the mite collection at the Station. It seems likely that P. Garman obtained the specimens for his own studies some time after 1957, given that D. Chant had stated that they were in the L.A. County Museum in 1957. This discovery comes after a series of efforts to locate the types by many authors (Gonzalez & Schuster, 1962; Ragusa & Vargas, 2002; Xu et al., 2013). The type of N. californicus (McGregor) (hereinafter Nc-McG) (Figs 1a, 2a) is the only specimen on the slide. It is relatively well-preserved, with most morphological features discernable, although some are difficult to see, especially the poroids and the anterolateral reticulation of the dorsal shield. Most idiosomal setae are present and intact, and all setae except two (j5, S5) have at least one seta of its pair present and unbroken; a few setae have become dislodged (e.g. one r3, both Z4, one JV1) but are still present near their alveola and are measurable (Fig. 3a, c). This is contrary to McGregor’s (1954) illustration, which shows all dorsal setae intact. The details of the cheliceral digits are obscured as they remain in their natural position and have not rotated to reveal the lateral 456 · Zootaxa 4500 (4) © 2018 See end page footer BEAULIEU & BEARD aspect; however, the spermatodactyls are positioned such that the shape of the lateral aspect (at least the foot) is clearly presented. The original slide of N. mungeri contains two females, as mentioned in McGregor (1954; Figs 1b, 2b–c). Unfortunately, the visibility of morphological features (e.g. parts of shields margins, subcapitulum) has been reduced by the deterioration of the mounting medium. Furthermore, most of the dorsal setae are broken off and missing on both females. Nevertheless, most other diagnostic features are amenable for study, including the spermathecae, shield ornamentation and chelicerae. Based on the similarity with McGregor’s (1954) illustrations of T. mungeri (e.g. exactly the same dorsal setae are present and missing), we determined that McGregor based most of his illustrations on one of the two females (Fig. 2b). That female is also slightly better preserved than the other specimen, and for that reason we here designate the female on the upper side of the slide as the lectotype of N. mungeri (Fig. 2b) and the other female on the slide (on the lower side; Fig. 2c) as a paralectotype. FIGURE 1. Photographs of the slides of key specimens studied: (a) Holotype of Typhlodromus californicus (male) (verbatim transcription of left label: “Garman says this is prob. a new sp.”, “TYPE”; see Table 1, slide lot #1 for info from the right label); (b) Syntypes of T. mungeri (2 females; verbatim transcription of right label: “Garman says this is a n. sp.”, “TYPE”; Table 1, lot #2); (c–g) Other specimens from lemon, in southern California (1952–1958) identified by authors as N. barkeri ((c) has a male and female; (d–g) have single females), corresponding to slide lots #3–6, respectively (see Table 1 for label details); (h) A female syntype of N. barkeri Hughes (slide lot #7, Table 1). [n.b. (h) is herein designated as lectotype of N. barkeri (verbatim transcription of left label: “Laelaptidae n. gen.”, “Neoseiulus”, “type”, “barkeri”, “sprouting barley”, “Barker”, “11.5.45”). Slides in (a, b, e–g) were labelled by E.A. McGregor, based on comparison with labels on slides of species that he originally collected and/or described (including types). Slides in (c, d) were most probably labelled by Francis Munger (USDA, Whittier, California), based on comparison with other labels on slides of specimens he collected.] Here we present brief redescriptions of the types of N. californicus and N. mungeri, including significant morphological features that were not included in the original descriptions (e.g. spermatodactyl, spermatheca). Our redescriptions are accompanied by illustrations and extensive morphometrics (Table 2, under ‘N. californicus type’ and ‘N. mungeri types’). NEOSEIULUS CALIFORNICUS Zootaxa 4500 (4) © 2018 See end page footer · 457 Repo- 9 sitory CAES CAES CNC CNC CNC CNC NHMUK CNC USNM CNC USNM, CNC CNC CNC ext page n e Other info 11-8, 3-4 X-51, 3-3, on lemon #94 2-11, Lemon No. 721, Whittier Lab., Room 76; CNC585096 CNC585097; L-27 CNC585099, CNC585100 CNC585098 ♀, 1982.8.16.1 [LECTOTYPE], 1982.8.16.2 CNC585123; "from type material" No. 2791 CNC585124– CNC585126, CNC585129 CNC585426 CNC585102– CNC585105; 96-248 CNC585106; 89-132 ……continued on th Collector F. Munger F. Munger F. Munger [based on McGregor 1956:7] F. Munger? F. Munger F. Munger Barker A.M. Hughes H.L. McKenzie H. Specht F.H. Haramoto, W. Fujii D. Elliott S.B. Hill (cid:2)bles 2–3). Date 16.i.1953 17.ii.1953 15.xii.1952 26.ii.1958 12.iii.1958 viii.1957 11.v.1945 "1948" (or 1945?) 12.vi.1960 11.iv.1958, 10.vi.1958 11.ix.1965, 17.ix.1965 15.x.1996 7.ix.1988 a hometric analysis (T Host lemon lemon lemon lemon (fruit) lemon (leaf+fruit) lemon sprouting barley germinating barley (docks) under juniper citrus, peach and maple trees in greenhouse litter and soil pepper plants (greenhouse) strawberries cluded in complete morp 7 Localities CA: Whittier CA: Whittier (College Grove) CA: Corona [as indicated in McGregor 1956:7] CA: Murphy Ranch CA: Santa Paula (Helvey+Dupree orchards) "So. Calif." London London CA: Cajon Pass, San Bernardina Co. NJ: New Brunswick Oahu: Manoa BC: Sidney QC: St-Louis-de-France n e i mens wer Country USA USA USA USA USA USA UK UK USA USA USA Hawaii) Canada Canada ci ( e p e that only some sSpecies orig. determined by E.A. McGregor (in consult. with P. Garman) ♂: P. Garman; ♀: probably Garman (or E.A. 1 McGregor) E.A. McGregor 2 or P. Garman E.A. McGregor 3or P. Garman P. Garman A.M. Hughes A.M. Hughes or H.H.J. 4 Nesbitt R.O. Schuster & A.E. Pritchard Specht V. Prasad E.E. Lindquist E. Shaul mens examined. Not Original det. label Typhlodromus californicus holotype Typhlodromus mungeri syntypes ♂ "may be ♀ "fallacis"; T. californicus" (+"marinus") "T. mungeri McG., cucumeris" ?mungeri ?mungeri N. barkeri syntypes N. barkeri 'from type material' Amblyseius mckenziei holotype Amblyseius picketti holotype + 3 paratypes N. oahuensis paratypes N. barkeri Amblyseius barkeri ci e p n data of sSpecies (our det.) irekrab .N o cti 1. Colle n ♂ ♀2 1♀1♂ ♀ 2♀ ♀ ♀1♂1 ♀ ♀ 4♀ ♀2 4♀ ♀ E TABLSlide lot # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 458 · Zootaxa 4500 (4) © 2018 See end page footer BEAULIEU & BEARD Reposi-9 tory NHMUK CNC CNC CNC USNM CNC MSA CNC CNC USNM CNC CNC CNC CNC CNC ext page n e Other info 1982.8.16.4, 1982.8.16.5 CNC585108– CNC585111 CNC830981– CNC831001 CNC585112– CNC585121; intercepted in Canada Lot 54-487; intercepted "at Phildelphia" CNC585163 414, 417, 424, 428, 32, 436 (studied by Tixier et al. 2008, Okassa et al. 2011) CNC921294-CNC921338 CNC585150, CNC585151 Q-33224; Lot 53-4264 CNC585133 CNC585134–CNC585142 CNC585143–CNC585145 CNC585146–CNC585149 CNC585165–CNC585173 ……continued on th #4 Collector Hancock ? J. Hulshof S. H. Lee I. Boerhore D.A. Chant M.-S. Tixier F. Beaulieu S. Pong (CFIA) R.E. Nute CFIA J. Tcaci (CFIA) G. Ferguson I. Rao CFIA Date 1.x.1953 ? [ca. 1980-8 1990] 27.iii.2017 31.viii.1995; 4-5.ix.1995 12.i.1954 vii.1955 1994; extracted in 2004 1994; extracted in 2018 25.viii.2008 24.iv.1953 14.i.2013 15.viii.2008 22.iii.2013 vii.2013 27.i.2010 Host "Canadian wheat" ? lab culture (since 2004; found on strawberries) cucumber lemon fruit seaweed culture; established from ♀s from CA (1994) as above Crocosmia sp. (cut flowers) "Beach bush" (leaf) Phoenix roebelnii lab culture greenhouse pepper lab culture imported to Canada 7 Localities ? Hahkiala [estate; ca. 110km N of Helsinki] Jokioinen Cheju: Samyang, Ku-eom – Kent: "Elmsted Ferry" original specimens from CA; culture maintained by Koppert (NL) as above CA: Lompoc FL: Fort Piece FL: Phoenix ON: Leamington ON: Leamington ON: Leamington South Chungcheon: Nonsan Country Canada Finland Finland South Korea "Sp[anish] Morocco" UK USA USA USA USA USA Canada Canada Canada South Korea Species orig. determined by A.M. Hughes E. Shaul Tuomo Tuovinen E.E. Lindquist 5? 6 D.A. Chant M.-S. Tixier – F. Beaulieu 6D.A. Chant F. Beaulieu F. Beaulieu F. Beaulieu F. Beaulieu F. Beaulieu Original det. label Typhlodromus barkeri A. barkeri N. barkeri N. barkeri "Typhl. marinus" ("maximus" scratched out) T. marinus N. californicus N. californicus N. californicus T. cucumeris N. californicus N. californicus N. californicus N. californicus N. californicus ed) Species (our det.) irekrab .N N.barkeri group sp. toirneH- ssauichitnAr oufsilnaecs .)Nr o gerGcM( u n 1. (Conti n 2♀ 8♀4♂ ♀ 129♂ 9♀1♂ ♀ 2♂ 6♀ 30♀ 15♂ 2♀ ♀ ♀ 4♀5♂ 2♀1♂ ♀4 ♀4♂5 E TABL Slide lot # 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NEOSEIULUS CALIFORNICUS Zootaxa 4500 (4) © 2018 See end page footer · 459 Reposi-9 tory AQIS QLD AQIS QLD QM AQIS NSW AQIS NSW QM QM QM QM QM QM ANIC ANIC ANIC SMNG CNC ext page n e Other info BIN: 220653, Q134636, 62112QA – Pest & Disease Intercept #230366 N118273/ #041054NA N119326/ A #041930NPest & Disease Intercept #36961 – – – – – "Ex. France" [host material prob. imported from France] "Ex. France Skelton" "Ex Greece seed" (4 slides) and "Ex Aust. seed" (1) 57/35615-1, -2, -3, -♀♀),♂)5, -6 (-8 ( CNC585154 ……continued on th Collector AQIS officer AQIS officer AQIS officer AQIS officer AQIS officer C. Fielding J. Altmann J. Altmann A. Read & K.J. Chandler D.F. Papacek D.F. Papacek G. Wearne G. Wearne? G. Wearne? Riegel L.M. Smith Date 19.iii.2013 3.ix.2013 20.i.2014 3.ii.2007 8.ix.2007 14.xi.2013 8 ? 8 6.iv.2009 21.i.2014 10.ii.2015 7.i.2015 6.iv.1971 10.v.1971 23.iv.1971 iii-iv.1957 2.iv.1961 Host Dianthus cut flowers Dianthus cut flowers cut roses cut roses cut roses cut roses lab culture (in SA: Loxton) lab culture (in SA: Loxton) sugarcane pear leaves strawberry plants Skelton weed [sic] [=Skeleton weed, Chondrilla juncea L.] Skelton [sic] Skelton weed [sic] Eichhornia crassipes moss (on irrigation ditch in avocado orchard) 7 Localities (Import, intercepted in Brisbane, Australia) (Import, intercepted in Brisbane) (Import, intercepted in Brisbane) (Import, intercepted in Brisbane) (Import, intercepted in Brisbane) (Import, intercepted in Brisbane) SA: Renmark QLD: Caloundra QLD: Yandaran VIC: Sheparton VIC: Victoria ACT: Canberra, Black Mt. ACT: Canberra ACT: Canberra Valparaíso La Cruz (Valparaíso) Country Kenya Kenya Kenya Kenya Kenya Kenya Australia Australia Australia Australia Australia Australia Australia Australia Chile Chile Species orig. determined by B. Crowe J. Beard J. Beard J. Otto J. Otto J. Beard J. Beard J. Beard J. Beard J. Beard J. Beard – – – G. Dosse R.H. Gonzalez Original det. label N. californicus N. californicus N. californicus N. californicus N. californicus N. californicus N. californicus N. californicus N. californicus N. californicus N. californicus nil [collection data matches that of N. wearnei holotype] nil [data similar to N. wearnei holotype] nil [data similar to N. wearnei holotype] N. chilenensis holotype + paratypes A. chilenensis ed) Species (our det.) toirneH-s asuihctiAnr uofsinlaesc ).NrogerGcM( u n 1. (Conti n ♀ ♀4 ♀ 2♂ ♂ 2♀ 3♀3♂ 4♀ 4♀ ♀4 ♀6 ♂ 1♀1♂ 6♀ ♀1♂ 5 ♀ E TABL Slide lot # 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 460 · Zootaxa 4500 (4) © 2018 See end page footer BEAULIEU & BEARD