Escobar-Garcia, Hector Alonso ¹ ; De Andrade, Daniel Júnior ² ; Matioli, André Luis ³ ; Rojas-Espinoza, Francisco Jose ⁴ and Ueckermann, Edward A. ⁵

¹✉ Facultad de Agronomía, Universidad Nacional de Piura (UNP), Piura, Peru & College of Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences, São Paulo State University (FCAV/UNESP), São Paulo, Brazil.
²College of Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences, São Paulo State University (FCAV/UNESP), São Paulo, Brazil.
³Laboratório de Acarologia, Instituto Biológico de Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil.
⁴Laboratorio de Valparaiso, Servicio Agricola y Ganadero (SAG), Chile.
⁵Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, Potchefstroom Campus, North-West University, Private Bag X6001, Potchefstroom, 2520, South Africa.

2023 - Volume: 63 Issue: 3 pages: 919-932

ZooBank LSID: 8EDDBA9E-BAAA-471C-88F3-23B07F50FC7B

Original research

Keywords

Abstract

Introduction

Stigmaeidae is one of the mite families in the superfamily Raphignathoidea (Acari: Trombidiformes: Prostigmata) and is one of the best-studied mite families, as several genera of the family were revised recently (Fan et al. 2016). The first key to the genera of Stigmaeidae was developed by González-Rodríguez (1965). Forty years later, Fan & Zhang (2005) compiled a key to the 26 genera then known and the first key to life stages of Stigmaeidae. Subsequently, Fan & Flechtmann (2015) summarized the research on the taxonomy, biology, and ecology of this family and counted 534 species in 33 genera. A year later, Fan et al. (2016) provides a catalogue that contained information on the systematic position of 577 species in 34 genera, their host plant range, and their referenced geographical distribution, and present a pictorial key to genera, of which in the Neotropics they reported 49 species in 8 genera, with Agistemus the most abundant. Recently Rehman, et al. (2018), separated the genus Agistemus species into two species groups; namely: fleschneri based on one pair of aggenital setae with 14 species; and terminalis based on two pairs of aggenital setae with 69 species. In the present study, we follow the definition of the genus Agistemus provided by Fan & Zhang (2005).

The genus Agistemus is one of the largest genera of the Stigmaeidae containing 85 valid species (Beron 2020), A. piquinnus Monjarás-Barrera & Johann, A. bahiensis Bizarro & Johann, A. neocollyerae Kamran et al., and A. arabensis Kamran et al. in Saudi Arabia were recently described and illustrated, adding up to 89 species (Beron 2020, Monjarás-Barrera et al. 2020, Bizarro et al. 2022, Kamran et al. 2023). Some species of this genus are known to prey on phytophagous mites of three families namely, Tetranychidae, Tenuipalpidae, and Eriophyidae, and on eggs of phytophagous insects (González-Rodríguez 1963; Elbadry et al. 1969; Muma & Selhime 1971; Hafez et al. 1983; Ehara 1985; Osman & Zaki 1986; Kethley 1990; Abou-Awad & Elsawi 1993; Momen 2001; Ferla & Moraes 2003; Gerson et al. 2003; Zhang 2003; Fan & Zhang 2005; Moraes & Flechtmann 2008; Leiva et al. 2013; Da Silva et al. 2015; Fan & Flechtmann 2015). Some of these species are associated with citrus (Muma & Selhime 1971; Garcia-Mari et al. 1986; Matioli et al. 2002, 2007; Childers & Ueckermann 2014), grapevines (Vitis vinifera L., Vitis labrusca L.) (Vitaceae), weeds associated with vineyard agroecosystem in Brazil (Johann et al. 2013), olive, Olea europaea L. (Oleaceae), variety Arauco in Argentina (Leiva et al. 2013), and Capsicum annuum L. (Solanaceae) in Mexico (Monjarás-Barrera et al. 2020).

Four species of Agistemus Summers were previously reported from Peru, namely: Agistemus fleschneri Summers, A. longisetus González-Rodríguez, A. floridanus González-Rodríguez, and A. terminalis (Quayle) (González-Rodríguez 1963; González-Rodríguez 1965; Fan et al. 2016). Herein, Agistemus peruvianus n. sp., is described and illustrated as a new species from specimens collected on Neltuma piurensis (L. Vásquez, Escurra & Huamán) C.E. Hughes & G.P. Lewis (Fabaceae) (Hughes et al. 2022) in Piura, north-western Peru, a forest tree recognized for its great economic, and ecological benefits (SERFOR 2021), and a key to all species of the genus Agistemus in Peru is presented.

Material and methods

The Agistemus specimens were collected from leaves of the native forest tree Neltuma piurensis on the campus of the Universidad Nacional de Piura (UNP), Peru (5°10′46.89″S; 80°37′04.31″W; 34 m a.s.l.) during June 2020 to June 2021. The climatic dataused (average daily temperatures and relative humidity for the sampling period) were obtained from the MetRadarUdep1 located within Universidad de Piura (UDEP), about 2.5km from the sampled trees (5°10′14″S; 80°38′18″W; 36 m a.s.l.). A total of 50 leaves, were collected randomly every two weeks, from the lower third of the trees and placed into paper bags and transferred to the laboratory. Thereafter, yellow mites were collected with a fine-tipped brush under the stereomicroscope (ZEISS Stemi 508) and were preserved in 70% ethanol. The preserved mites were then mounted dorso-ventrally on a microscope slide in Hoyer's medium and put in an oven at 50 °C for 7 days (Walter and Krantz 2009), then the slides were sealed with nail polish. All mites were examined under a Nikon Eclipse E200 phase-contrast compound microscope. Measurements were done using the same microscope and are given in μm. Setae were measured from the centre of the seta base to the tip of the seta; distances between setae were measured as the distance from the centre of one seta base to the other. The nomenclature for gnathosomal and leg setation follows that of Grandjean (1944) and for the idiosomal setae that of Kethley (1990). The photos were taken using a AixoCam MRc5 camera mounted on a Zeiss Axio Imager.Z2 AX10 DIC compound microscope. The type materials are deposited in UNP— Acarology collection of the Entomology Laboratory, SL01LA68, at the Universidad Nacional de Piura, Peru; ESALQ— Departamento de Entomologia e Acarologia, Escola Superior de Agricultura ''Luiz de Queiroz″, Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil; and IB— Instituto Biológico de Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil.

Taxonomy

Family Stigmaeidae Oudemans, 1931

Genus Agistemus Summers, 1960

Agistemus Summers, 1960: 234.

Type species — Caligonus terminalis Quayle 1912, by original designation.

Agistemus terminalis (Quayle), Summers 1960: 234

Diagnosis — Based on Fan & Zhang 2005.

Species group terminalis

Type species — Agistemus terminalis (Quayle). Diagnosis Based on Rehman et al. 2018. Two pairs of aggenital setae (ag_1-2).

Agistemus peruvianus Escobar-Garcia, Matioli & Ueckermann n. sp.

ZOOBANK: E29BA6C8-8C2F-453B-B08C-7135705998BE

(Figures 1–7, Tables 1–3)

Type material examined

Holotype female — Peru, campus of the Universidad Nacional de Piura, Piura (5°10′46.9″S 80°37′04.31″W), May 10, 2021, Hector Escobar (SL01LA68).

Paratypes — Six females, two males, and two deutonymphs on separate microscope slides in (SL01LA68); two females on separate microscope slides in ESALQ; one female and one deutonymph, on separate microscope slides in IB, same data as holotype, except collected between October 12, 2020 to June 07, 2021.

General diagnosis

Female

Aggenital shield entire with two pairs of aggenital setae (ag_1-2); prodorsal and hysterosomal shields without reticulation (smooth); humeral plates present, setae c₂ on humeral plates; dorsal idiosomal setae long, barbed, and inserted on strong tubercles, ratios sci/pob 4.2 ± 0.1, pob/eye 2.04 ± 0.0, vi/vi–vi 2.9 ± 0.1, ve/ve–sci 2.4 ± 0.1, c₁/c₁–c₁ 3.2 ± 0.1, d₁/d₁–d₁ 1.2 ± 0.1, e₁/e₁–e₁ 2.9 ± 0.1; tibia I and II with one barbed seta; tibia III and IV with two of this type of seta.

Description

Female (n=10)

(Figures 1–4)

Body — Yellowish, and with eyes red, lateral on prodorsal shield. The length of the body was measured from the posterior margin of the idiosoma to the tip of the infracapitulum 365 ± 3.3 (340–420).

Idiosomal dorsum — Idiosoma broadly oval. Prodorsal shield subtriangular smooth, with one pair of eyes 9.0 ± 0.2 (8–10); two post ocular bodies pob 18.3 ± 0.3 (17–20), and 3 pairs of setae (vi, ve and sci) (Fig. 1); sci/pob 4.2 ± 0.1 (3.8–4.5); pob/eye 2.04 ± 0.0 (2.0–2.1). Humeral shields smooth, small and bearing setae c₂. Hysterosomal shield polygonal without reticulations (smooth), bearing five pairs of setae (c₁, d₁, d₂, e₁ and e₂), intercalary shields smooth and with setae f, suranal shield entire and smooth, with two pairs of setae (h₁ and h₂) (Fig. 2). Dorsal setae inserted on tubercles, long, barbed, h₁ and h₂ comparatively shorter than other dorsal setae (ve ≥ e₁ ≥ e₂ ≥ d₁ > c₁ ≥ d₂ ≥ sci > f> vi > c₂ > h₁ > h₂, based on mean ± SE with 95% confidence interval of the means). Setae h₁ longer than setae h₂; setae h₂ inserted anterior to setae h₁. Ratios: vi/vi–vi 2.9 ± 0.1 (2.6–3.1), ve/ve–sci 2.4 ± 0.1 (2.2–2.6), c₁/c₁–c₁ 3.2 ± 0.1 (2.6–4.3),d₁/d₁–d₁ 1.2 ± 0.1 (1.1–1.4),e₁/e₁–e₁ 2.9 ± 0.1 (2.5–3.2). Lengths of dorsal setae and distance between dorsal setae are presented in Table 1.

Gnathosoma — The infracapitulum bearing subcapitular setae m 25.8 ± 0.3 (22.5–30.0), n 39.2 ± 1.0 (35–45), adoral setae or₁ 15.8 ± 0.3 (15–17) and or₂ 10.6 ± 0.4 (8–15). Distances m–m 40.4 ± 1.1 (35–45), n–n 33.3 ± 0.7 (30–35), or₁–or₁ 14.1 ± 0.4 (12–15), or₂–or₂ 7.3 ± 0.2 (6–8). Cheliceral stylet 37.1 ± 0.7 (35–40) slightly longer than palp tarsus 22 ± 0.1 (20–23). Palp with pair supracoxal setae elcp; palp trochanter without setae; palp femur with two smooth setae (l′, v″) and one barbed seta (d); palp genu with one smooth seta (l′); palp tibia with two smooth setae (l′, l″), one well-developed claw (18–22), one seta associated with claw (l′T); palp tarsus (22–23) with four simple setae (ba, bp, va and lp), one solenidion (ω) (6–8), subapical eupathidium (acmζ) and three eupathidia (sulζ, ul′ζ, ul″ζ), fused at basis, trifid distally (Fig. 3).

Idiosomal venter — Striae between setae 1a–1a, 3a–3a, and 4a–4a obliquely longitudinal. Striae form a diamond-shaped pattern between setae 1a–3a, and 4a–ag₁ (Fig. 2B). In addition, the area between setae 3a–4a with longitudinal striation. Aggenital shield entire, horseshoe-shaped, bearing two pairs of setae (ag₁ and ag₂). Anogenital covers with one pair of genital setae (g₁) and three pairs of pseudanal setae (ps_1-3), ps₁ barbed (Fig.1D). Lengths of ventral setae and distance between ventral setae are presented in Table 2.

Leg chaetotaxy — Legs I–IV with two tarsal claws and an arolium with tenent hairs between the claws. Number of setae on leg segments, with solenidia (on tibiae and tarsus), supracoxal setae (on coxae), and specialized setae (on genua) given in parentheses: coxae 2 (+1elcp)–1–2–2, trochanters 1–1–1–1, femora 5–4–2–2, genua 3 (+1κ)–1–0–0, tibiae 5 (+1φρ)–5 (+1φρ)–5 (+1φρ)–5 (+1φρ), and tarsi 12 (+1ω)–9 (+1ω)–7 (+1ω)–7 (Fig. 4). Dorsal seta on femur I (dFI) barbed 44.4 ± 1.8 (38–53), equal than h₁, 1.0 ± 0.1 (0.9–1.1) times length of h₁; dorsal seta on genu I (dGI) barbed 33.3 ± 0.8 (30–38). Length of solenidion on tibia (φρ): Tibia I φρ 20.9 ± 0.3 (20–22); Tibia II φρ 17.6 ± 0.5 (16–20); Tibia III φρ 16.0 ± 0.3 (15–18); Tibia IV φρ 15.6 ± 0.2 (15–17). Length of solenidion on tarsus (ω): tarsus I ω 22.4 ± 0.7 (20–25); tarsus II ω 21.6 ± 0.6 (20–25); tarsus III ω 15.3 ± 0.2 (15–17). Length tarsal claws I–IV (15–17). Leg chaetotaxy also is as in Table 3.

Male (n=2)

(Figure 5)

Body — Yellowish, with eyes red lateral on prodorsal shield. The male is smaller than the female, with a body that tapers posteriorly. The length of the body was measured from the posterior margin of the idiosoma to tip of infracapitulum 290–300, width of idiosomal 155–157.

Idiosomal dorsum — Prodorsal shield subtriangular smooth, with one pair of eyes; two pob and three pairs of setae (vi, ve and sci); ratio: sci/pob: (3.9–4.2); pob/eye (2.0–2.1). Humeral shields smooth, small and bearing setae c₂. Hysterosomal shield polygonal without reticulations (smooth), bearing six pairs of setae (c₁, d₁, d₂, e₁, e₂, and f) (Fig. 5A); suranal shield entire and smooth, with two pairs of setae (h₁ and h₂). Dorsal setae inserted on tubercles, long, barbed, h₁ and h₂ comparatively shorter than other dorsal setae. Lengths of dorsal setae: vi (49–52), ve (70–80), sci (63–70), c₁ (60–65), c₂ (45–47), d₁ (57–58), d₂ (63–65), e₁ (25–32), e₂ (58–60), f (50–57), h₁ 18, h₂ 20, distances between dorsal idiosomal setae: vi–vi (21–22), ve–ve (42–47), ve–sci 40, sci–sci (89–95), c₁–c₁ (19–25), c₂–c₂ 150, d₁–d₁ (55–57), d₂–d₂ (90–100), e₁–e₁ 22, e₂–e₂ (76–80), f–f (39–40), h₁–h₁ 10, h₂–h₂ (35–37). Ratios: vi/vi–vi (2.3), ve/ve–sci (1.7–2.0), c₁/c₁–c₁ (2.6–3.2), d₁/d₁–d₁ 1.0, e₁/e₁–e₁ (1.1–1.4).

Gnathosoma — Similar to that of female. The infracapitulum bearing subcapitular setae m (27–28), n (37–45), adoral setae or₁ 15, or₂ 13. Distances m–m (39–42), n–n (29–35), or₁–or₁ 14, or₂–or₂ 6. Cheliceral stylet 35 slightly longer than palptarsus (18–20). Palp with pair supracoxal setae elcp; palp trochanter without setae; palp femur with two smooth setae (l′, v″) and one barbed seta (d); palp genu with one smooth seta (l′); palp tibia with two smooth setae (l′, l″), one well-developed claw 20, one seta associated with claw (l′T); palptarsus, with four simple setae (ba, bp, va and lp), one solenidion (ω) 8, subapical eupathidium (acm) and three eupathidia (sul, ul′, ul″), fused at basis, trifid distally (Fig. 5B).

Idiosomal Venter — Striae between the setae 1a–1a, 3a–3a, and 4a–4a with obliquely longitudinal. Striae also form a diamond-shaped pattern between the setae 1a–3a, and 4a–g₁. Area between setae 3a–4a with longitudinal striation. Anogenital covers with three pairs of pseudanal setae (ps_1-3). Lengths of ventral setae: 1a (20–21), 3a 20, 4a 18, ag₁ (10–14), ag₂ (10–12); distances between ventral idiosomal setae: 1a–1a (30–32), 3a–3a (42–45), 4a–4a (26–42), ag₁–ag₁ 20, ag₂–ag₂ 27.

Leg chaetotaxy — Leg setal counts as in female except tarsi 12 (+2ω) –9 (+2ω) –7 (+1ω) –7 (+1ω). Dorsal seta on femur I (dFI) barbed (47–48), longer than h₁, 2.6–2.7 times length of h₁; dorsal seta on genu I (dGI) barbed (34–35). Length of solenidion on tibia (φρ): Tibia I φρ (20–22), tibia II φρ (15–16); tibia III φρ 15; tibia IV φρ 15. Length of solenidion on tarsus (ω): tarsus I ωI (32–35), ωII 22, distance ωI–ωII 15 (Fig. 5B); tarsus II ωI (30–32), ωII (22–24), distance ωI–ωII (2–3); tarsus III ωI (12–13); tarsus IV ωI (14–16). Length tarsal claws I–IV 15.

Aedeagus. Aedeagus an elongated shaft, 50–55 long, terminal third bifid. Posterior half enclosed in a broad sheath (11–12 height, 16–17 width) which ends in two pointed sclerotized structures which may act as a guide.

Deutonymph (n=3)

(Figure 6)

Body — Deutonymph also yellowish with red eyes lateral on prodorsal shield. The deutonymph is smaller than the female. The length of the body was measured from the posterior margin of the idiosoma to the tip of the infracapitulum 316.1 ± 8.4; width of idiosomal 156.0 ± 6.5 (Fig. 6A).

Idiosomal dorsum — Prodorsal shield subtriangular smooth, with one pair of eyes; two post ocular bodies (pob) (Fig. 6B), and three pairs of setae (vi, ve and sci); ratio: sci/pob: 3.2; pob/eye 2.5; humeral shields smooth, small and bearing setae c₂. Hysterosomal shield polygonal without reticulations (smooth), bearing five pairs of setae (c₁, d₁, d₂, e₁ and e₂); intercalary shields smooth and with setae f (Fig. 6C); suranal shield entire and smooth, with two pairs of setae (h₁ and h₂). Dorsal setae inserted on tubercles, long, barbed, h₁ and h₂ comparatively shorter than other dorsal setae. Setae h₁ longer than setae h₂. Lengths of dorsal setae: vi 43.3 ± 3.3, ve 66.8 ± 6.8, sci 57.1 ± 1.1, c₁ 59.6 ± 1.5, c₂ 40.6 ± 0.6, d₁ 62.8 ± 4.2, d₂ 62.0 ± 3.9, e₁ 65.4 ± 2.8, e₂ 66.2 ± 2.5, f 43.0 ± 5.3, h₁ 31.4 ± 2.8, h₂ 19.0 ± 2.2; distances between dorsal idiosomal setae: vi–vi 18.5 ± 1.1, ve–ve 42.5, sci–sci 92.5, c₁–c₁ 22.3 ± 2.7, c₂–c₂ 150, d₁–d₁ 63.5 ± 5.6, d₂–d₂ 100, e₁–e₁ 27.2 ± 0.3, e₂–e₂ 90, f–f 58.1 ± 8.1, h₁–h₁ 16.1 ± 1.1, h₂–h₂ 37.5. Ratios: vi/vi–vi 2.4, ve/ve–sci 1.7, c₁/c₁–c₁ 2.8, d₁/d₁–d₁ 1.0, e₁/e₁–e₁ 2.5.

Gnathosoma — Similar to that of the female. The infracapitulum with subcapitular setae m 16, n 30, adoral setae or₁ 10, or₂ 8. Cheliceral stylet 28 slightly longer than palp tarsus 15. Distances m–m 30, n–n 22.5, or₁–or₁ 10, or₂–or₂ 6. Palp with pair supracoxal setae elcp; palp trochanter without setae; palp femur with two smooth setae (l′, v″) and one barbed seta (d); palp genu with one smooth seta (l′); palp tibia with two smooth setae (l′, l″), one well-developed claw (13–15), one seta associated with claw (l′T); palptarsus 15, with four simple setae (ba, bp, va and lp), one solenidion (ω) 5, subapical eupathidium (acm) and three eupathidia (sul, ul′, ul″), fused at basis, trifid distally.

Idiosomal Venter — Similar to that of female. Aggenital shield entire, horseshoe-shaped, bearing two pairs of setae (ag_1-2). Anogenital covers with three pairs of pseudanal setae (ps_1-3), ps₁ barbed seta (Fig. 6D). Distances between dorsal idiosomal setae: 1a–1a 40; 3a–3a 72.

Leg chaetotaxy — Similar to that of the female (see Table 3). Dorsal seta on femur I (dFI) barbed 28, 0.89 times length of h₁; dorsal seta on genu I (dGI) barbed 33. Length of solenidion on tibia (φρ): Tibia I φρ 12; Tibia II φρ 11; Tibia III φρ 11; Tibia IV φρ 10. Length of solenidion on tarsus (ω): Tarsus I ω 16; Tarsus II ω 15; Tarsus III ω 10. Length tarsal claws I–IV 10.

Etymology — The specific epithet ''peruvianus'' is derived from the country, Peru.

Remarks — The new species resembles Agistemus longisetus González-Rodríguez, 1963; A. mechotrichus Fan & Zhang 2005; and A. piquinnus Monjarás-Barrera & Johann 2020; nevertheless Agistemus peruvianus n. sp., can be distinguished from A. longisetus by a) body size (365.0 ± 3.3), and color in life (yellow), dorsal setae strongly developed inserted on strong tubercles, post ocular bodies small, and tarsi III and IV without a barbed setae, are different (vs 527 ± 21, bright red, dorsal setae strongly developed inserted on small tubercles, post ocular bodies big, and tarsi III and IV with a barbed setae respectively); b) lengths of prodorsal setae vi (57.5 ± 0.9), ve (94.5 ± 1.7), and sci (76.8 ± 1.8) are shorter, (vs 77 ± 8, 123 ± 12.3, and 111 ± 7.8, respectively); c) lengths of hysterosomal setae c₁ (83.4 ± 1.2), d₁ (88.5 ± 1.1), e₁ (91.5 ± 0.8), e₂ (90.2 ± 0.8), are shorter (vs 104 ± 12, 103 ± 11.6, 118 ± 12.5, and 123 ± 19, respectively); d) lengths of f (67.7 ± 1.1), and suranal setae h₁ (42.8 ± 0.8), h₂ (24.3 ± 1.2) are shorter, (vs 90 ± 6.4, 56 ± 3.5, and 36 ± 1.9, respectively); e) the ratio ve/ve–sci (2.4), sci/pob (4.2), and pob/eye (2) are different (vs < 2, ≤ 3, and 3, respectively); f) lengths setae ag₁ (15–17), and ag₂ (15–20), are shorter [vs (18–19), and (22–23), respectively]; g) in male: ratio ωIV/ωIII= 1.2 (vs 1.5).

Agistemus peruvianus n. sp., can be distinguished from A. mechotrichus by a) lengths of prodorsal setae vi (57.5), ve (94.5), and sci (76.8) are shorter, (vs 101, 145, and 139, respectively); b) lengths of hysterosomal setae c₁ (83.4) , d₁ (88.5), d₂ (79.2), e₁ (91.5), e₂ (90.2) are shorter, (vs 115, 112, 134, 120, and 139, respectively); c) lengths of f (67.7), and suranal setae h₁ (42.8), h₂ (24.3) are shorter, (vs 94, 56, and 36, respectively); d) the ratio vi/vi–vi (2.9), and ve/ve–sci (2.4), are different (vs 2.3, and > 2.5, respectively).

Agistemus peruvianus n. sp., can be distinguished from A. piquinnus by a) lengths of hysterosomal setae c₁ (83.4), d₁ (88.5), d₂ (79.2), e₁ (91.5), e₂ (90.2) are longer, (vs 73, 72, 67, 73, and 76, respectively); b) the ratio ve/ve–sci (2.4), c₁/c₁–c₁ (3.2), and pob/eye (2.0) are different (vs 1.74, 2.1, and 3.2, respectively); c) dorsal setae strongly developed inserted on strong tubercles, and aggenital shield entire and horseshoe-shape, are different (vs dorsal setae strongly developed inserted on small tubercles, and aggenital shield separate and not horseshoe-shape).

The presence of barbed setae in the leg segments, is a character used for the description of species (González-Rodríguez 1963, 1965). According to this, Agistemus peruvianus n. sp., would have the same distribution of barbed setae on the femur, genu, and tibia on all 4 legs with the species Agistemus novazelandicus Gonzales-Rodrigues 1963 (review based on 43 species with chaetotaxy available in the literature), namely: femur–tibia I (1–3–1), femur–tibia II (1–1–1); femur–tibia III and IV (1–0–2). However, A. peruvianus n. sp., can be distinguished from A. novazelandicus by a) prodorsal and hysterosomal shields without reticulation (smooth), seta sci > c₂, vi/vi–vi 2.9, are different (vs prodorsal and hysterosomal shields with reticulation, seta sci=c₂, and vi/vi–vi 1.5, respectively); b) lengths of prodorsal setae vi (57.5 ± 0.9), ve (94.5 ± 1.7), and sci (76.8 ± 1.8) are longer, (vs 39 ± 2.3, 63 ± 5, and 54 ± 2.2, respectively); c) lengths of hysterosomal setae c₁ (83.4 ± 1.2), d₁ (88.5 ± 1.1), e₁ (91.5 ± 0.8), e₂ (90.2 ± 0.8) are longer, (vs 45 ± 4.6, 46.1 ± 3.9, 53.5 ± 2.2, and 53 ± 3, respectively); d) lengths of f (66.8 ± 1.2) is longer, (vs 49 ± 2.9).

Ecological observations

The mites were found during spring, summer, and autumn, being more frequent in the months of March and June corresponding to the autumn season. The environmental conditions during the autumn season were: minimum temperature is ranged 18.9 to 22.3 °C, maximum temperature 27.0 to 33.8 °C, and relative humidity 65.1 to 79.6% (Fig. 7). The new species inhabits abaxial surface of the leaves of N. piurensis.

Key to the Agistemus species of Peru (based on adult females)

1. One pair of aggenital setae (ag₁); median hysterosomal shield reticulated
...... A. fleschneri Summers

— Two pairs of aggenital setae (ag₁, ag₂); median hysterosomal shield smooth
...... 2

2. Setae c₁ shorter than distance between the bases of c₁–d₁; setae e₁ at least reaching to the bases of f
...... 3

— Setae c₁ longer than distance between the bases of c₁–d_1; setae e₁ crossing to the bases of f
...... 4

3. Ratio vi/vi–vi ≤ 1.2; ratio c₁/c₁–c₁ ≤ 0.6; dorsal setae not set on tubercles; dorsal setae of hysterosomal shield < 50 μm
...... A. terminalis (Quayle)

— Ratio vi/vi–vi ≤ 1.7; ratio c₁/c₁–c₁ ≤ 1.6; dorsal setae set on tubercles; dorsal setae of hysterosomal shield ≥ 50 μm
...... A. floridanus Gonzalez-Rodriguez

4. Ratio ve/ve–sci < 2; pob/eye 3; dorsal setae set on small tubercles; dorsal setae of hysterosomal shield ≥ 100 μm
...... A. longisetus González-Rodríguez

— Ratio ve/ve–sci ≥ 2.4; pob/eye 2; dorsal setae set on strong tubercles; dorsal setae of hysterosomal shield < 100 μm
...... A. peruvianus Escobar-Garcia, Matioli & Ueckermann n. sp.

Acknowledgments

We want to express our thanks to Universidad de Piura (UDEP), Peru for the information on the meteorological data of MetRadarUdep1 station. We thank Invertebrate Morphology Laboratory- DBAA-FCAVJ/UNESP-Brazil for the help with the figures. We thank Laboratory of Entomology and Acarology of the SAG, Valparaiso, Chile for support and assistance with type materials of Agistemus longisetus (voucher n° 4453, 52661, 84826, and 85180). We also thank you to express our special thanks go to Division of Plant Protection (DPP), Department of Agriculture, Pretoria, South Africa for support and assistance with type materials of A. longisetus (voucher n° Acy:09/375).

References

1. Abou-Awad B.A., Elsawi S.A. 1993. Biology and life table of the predacious mite, Agistemus exsertus Gonz. (Acari: Stigmaeidae). Anzeiger Fur Schadlingskunde, 66(5): 101-103. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01906820
2. Beron P. 2020. Acarorum Catalogus VII. Trombidiformes, Prostigmata, Raphignathoidea (Fam. Barbutiidae, Caligonellidae, Camerobiidae, Cryptognathidae, Dasythyreidae, Dytiscacaridae, Eupalopsellidae, Homocaligidae, Mecognathidae, Raphignathidae, Stigmaeidae, Xenocaligonellididae). Pensoft & National Museum of Natural History, Sofia, p. 140-265. https://doi.org/10.3897/ab.e55087
3. Bizarro G.L, Melo E.A.S.F., Oliveira A.R., Johann L. 2022. New records and a new species of Agistemus Summers (Raphignathoidea: Stigmaeidae) from Bahia, Brazil. Syst. Appl. Acarol., 27(5): 855-864. https://doi.org/10.11158/saa.27.5.3
4. Childers C.C., Ueckermann E.A. 2014. Eupalopsellidae and Stigmaeidae (Acari: Prostigmata) within citrus orchards in Florida: species distribution, relative and seasonal abundance within trees, associated vines, and ground cover plants. Exp. Appl. Acarol., 64(2): 187-205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10493-014-9815-x
5. Da Silva M.Z., Sato M.E., De Oliveira C.A., Nicastro R.L. 2015. Interspecific interactions involving Neoseiulus californicus (Acari: Phytoseiidae) and Agistemus brasiliensis (Acari: Stigmaeidae) as predators of Brevipalpus phoenicis (Acari: Tenuipalpidae). Exp. Appl. Acarol., 65(3): 319-329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10493-014-9874-z
6. Ehara S.A. 1985. New species of the genus Agistemus Summers from Hokkaido (Acarina: Stigmaeidae). Proc. Jpn. Acad., Tokyo, 61: 60-66. https://doi.org/10.2183/pjab.61.60
7. Elbadry E.A., Abo Elghar M.R., Hassan S.M., Kilany S.M. 1969. Agistemus exsertus as a Predator of Two Tetranychid Mites. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am., 62(3): 660-661. https://doi.org/10.1093/aesa/62.3.660
8. Fan Q.-H., Flechtmann C.H.W. 2015. Stigmaeidae. In: Carrillo D., De Moraes G.J., Peña J.E. (Eds.) Prospects for biological control of plant feeding mites and other harmful organisms. Springer Verlag, p. 189-196. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15042-0_7
9. Fan Q.-H., Zhang Z.-Q. 2005. Raphignathoidea (Acari: Prostigmata). Fauna of New Zealand. Manaaki Whenua Press, 52, pp. 400.
10. Fan Q.-H., Flechtmann C.H., de Moraes G.J. 2016. Annotated catalogue of Stigmaeidae (Acari: Prostigmata), with a pictorial key to genera. Zootaxa, 4176(1): 1-199. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4176.1.1
11. Ferla N.J., Moraes G.J. 2003. Biologia de Agistemus floridanus Gonzalez (Acari, Stigmaeidae). Revista Brasileira de Zoologia, 20(2): 261-264. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0101-81752003000200015
12. Garcia-Mari F., Ferragut F., Marzal C., Costa C. J., Laborda R. 1986. Acaros que viven en las hojas de los citricosbespañoles. Investigacion Agraria: Produccion y Proteccion Vegetales, 1(2): 226-235. (in Spanish)
13. Grandjean F. 1944. Observations sur les acariens de la famille des Stigmaeidae. Archives des Sciences Physiques et Naturelles, 26: 103-131. (in French)
14. Gerson U., Smiley R., Ochoa, R. 2003. Acarine pests of citrus: overview and non-chemicalcontrol. Syst. Appl. Acarol., 8(1): 3-12. https://doi.org/10.11158/saa.8.1.1
15. González-Rodríguez R.H. 1963. Four new mites of the genus Agistemus Summers, 1960 (Acarina: Stigmaeidae). Acarologia, 5(3): 342-350.
16. González-Rodríguez R.H. 1965. A taxonomic study of the genera Mediolata, Zetzellia and Agistemus (Acarina: Stigmaeidae). University of California Publications in Entomology, 41: 1-64.
17. Hafez S.A., Rasmy A.H., Elsawi S.A. 1983. Influence of prey species and stage on predatory efficiency and development of the stigmaeid mite Agistemus exsertus. Acarologia, 24: 281-283.
18. Hughes C.E., Ringelberg J.J., Lewis G.P., Catalano S.A. 2022. Disintegration of the genus Prosopis L. (Leguminosae, Caesalpinioideae, mimosoid clade). In: Hughes C.E., de Queiroz L.P., Lewis G.P. (Eds). Advances in Legume Systematics 14. Classification of Caesalpinioideae Part 1: New generic delimitations. PhytoKeys, 205: 147-189. https://doi.org/10.3897/phytokeys.205.75379
19. Johann L., Carvalho G.S., Majolo F., Ferla N.J. 2013. Stigmaeid mites (Acari: Stigmaeidae) from vineyards in the state of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Zootaxa, 3701(2): 238-256. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3701.2.6
20. Kamran M., Mirza J.H., Elgoni N.A., Alatawi F.J. 2023. Two new species of the genus Agistemus Summers (Acari: Stigmaeidae) from Saudi Arabia. Acarologia, 63(2): 580-590. https://doi.org/10.24349/srli-y7eg
21. Kethley J. 1990. Acariformes, Prostigmata (Actinedida). In: Dindal D.L. (Ed.). Soil biology guide. John Wiley & Sons, New York, p. 667-756.
22. Leiva S., Fernandez N., Theron P., Rollard C. 2013. Agistemus aimogastaensis sp. n. (Acari, Actinedida, Stigmaeidae), a recently discovered predator of eriophyid mites Aceria oleae and Oxycenus maxwelli, in olive orchards in Argentina. Zookeys, 26(312): 65-78. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.312.5520
23. Matioli A.L., Ueckermann E.A., Oliveira C.A.L. 2002. Some stigmaeid and eupalopsellid mites from citrus orchards in Brazil (Acari: Stigmaeidae and Eupalopsellidae). Int. J. Acarol., 28(2): 99-120. https://doi.org/10.1080/01647950208684287
24. Matioli A.L., Tavares M.G., Pallini A. 2007. Agistemus pallinii n. sp. (Acari: Stigmaeidae) from citrus orchards in Brazil. Int. J. Acarol., 33(3): 245-251. https://doi.org/10.1080/01647950708684529
25. Momen F.M. 2001. Effects of diet on the biology and life tables of the predacious mite Agistemus exsertus (Acari: Stigmaeidae). Acta Phytopathol. Entomol. Hung., 36(1): 173-178. https://doi.org/10.1556/APhyt.36.2001.1-2.20
26. Monjarás-Barrera J.I., da Silva G.L., Chacón-Hernández J.C., da Silva O.S, Ferla N.J., Johann L. 2020. A new species and new record of Agistemus Summers (Acari: Stigmaeidae) associated with Capsicum annuum L. var. glabriusculum (Solanaceae) from Northeastern of Mexico. Acarologia, 60(2): 470-480. https://doi.org/10.24349/acarologia/20204378
27. Moraes G.J., Flechtmann C.H.W. 2008. Manual de Acarologia: acarologia básica e ácaros de plantas cultivadas no Brasil. Riberao Preto (SP): Holos, Editora. p. 82-83. (in Portuguese)
28. Muma M.H., Selhime A.G. 1971. Agistemus floridanus (Acarina: Stigmaeidae), a predatory mite, on Florida citrus. Fla. Entomol., 54: 249-258. https://doi.org/10.2307/3493723
29. Osman A.A., Zaki A.M. 1986. Studies on the predation efficiency of Agistemus exsertus Gonzalez (Acarina, Stigmaeidae) on the eriophyid mite Aculops lycopersici (Massee). Anzeiger Fur Schadlingskunde, 59(7): 135-136. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01903320
30. Quayle H.J. 1912. Red spiders and mites of citrus trees. University of California Experiment Station Bulletin, 234: 483-530. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.59342
31. Rehman M.U., Kamran M., Alatawi F.J. 2018. Genus Agistemus Summers (Acari: Trombidiformes: Stigmaeidae) from Saudi Arabia and a key to the world species. Syst. Appl. Acarol., 23(6): 1051-1072. https://doi.org/10.11158/saa.23.6.5
32. SERFOR. 2021. Servicio Nacional Forestal y de Fauna Silvestre. Avances sobre la investigación de ''algarrobo'' Prosopis (Fabaceae) en la costa norte del Perú. Lima-Perú. pp.73. (accessed December 15, 2022). http://repositorio.serfor.gob.pe/handle/SERFOR/905 (in Spanish)
33. Summers F.M. 1960. Several stigmaeid mites formerly included in Mediolata redescribed in Zetzellia Ouds and Agistemus new genus. Proc. Entomol. Soc. Wash., 62(4): 233-247.
34. Walter D.E., Krantz G.W. 2009. Collecting, rearing, and preparing specimens. In: Krantz G.W., Walter D.E. (Eds). A manual of Acarology. 3rd ed. Texas Tech University Press, p. 83-96.
35. Zhang Z.-Q. 2003. Mites of greenhouses: identification, biology, and control. Cambridge, MA, USA: CABI Publishing, pp. 257.

instructions