Galendromus (Galendromus) occidentalis (Nesbitt)

Trincado, R. D., Martin, J. P. I., Méndez Rosa, D. D., Lopes, P. C. & De Moraes, G. J., 2018, Phytoseiid mites (Acari: Phytoseiidae) from Chile, with descriptions of three new species and a redescription of Chileseius camposi, Zootaxa 4482 (2), pp. 322-340 : 331-332

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.4482.2.5
publication LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:pub:5A7A98D9-4585-45A8-9A7C-4320664A673E
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5964903
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/A1027F64-FFE5-FFDF-5399-6922435EFDA8
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Galendromus (Galendromus) occidentalis (Nesbitt)
status

Treatment

Galendromus (Galendromus) occidentalis (Nesbitt) View in CoL

Typhlodromus occidentalis Nesbitt, 1951: 29 .

Galendromus (Galendromus) occidentalis View in CoL .— Moraes et al. 1986: 190; 2004: 268. Specimens examined. Santiago Region. Municipality of La Pintana, on Convolvulus arvensis View in CoL L., March 2000, associated with Tetranychus urticae Koch View in CoL ; on Ficus carica View in CoL L., March 2000, associated with Eriophyes fici Essig ; on Malus domestica Borkh View in CoL , February 2002, associated with Tydeidae View in CoL ; on Pelargonium hortorum L. H. Bailey View in CoL , June 2002, associated with Tydeidae View in CoL ; on Phaseolus vulgaris View in CoL L., March 2002, associated with Tetranychus desertorum Banks View in CoL ; Prunus salicina View in CoL , April 2002, associated with Oligonychus View in CoL sp.; on Trifolium View in CoL sp., March 2002, associated with T. . urticae View in CoL ; Buin, on Malus domestica Borkh View in CoL , April 1990, associated with Panonychus ulmi (Koch) View in CoL ; on Prunus avium View in CoL (L.), April 1990, associated with Panonychus ulmi (Koch) View in CoL and T. urticae View in CoL .

Measurements of two collected females: dorsal shield 315, 342 long, 170, 180 width; j 1 20; j 3 52; j 4 31; j 5 37, 46; j 6 56, 62; j 2 55, 68; J 5 9, 10; z 2 53, 59; z 3 47, 54; z 4 52, 58; z 5 37, 47; Z 4 58, 67; z 5 57, 62; s 4 54, 62; s 6 62, 71; S 2 62, 72; S 5 57, 65; r 3 42, 49.

Remarks. The two females with the same collection data were found to have very different sizes, and for this reason, both were measured. Both of them are distinctly smaller than reported by Chant & Yoshida-Shaul (1984) for a type specimen (dorsal shield 380 long); concurrently, most setae of the larger specimens are about 10–20% shorter than reported by those authors for that type specimen.