Bryobia longisetis Reck, 1947

Auger, P. & Migeon, A., 2014, Three New Species Of Tetranychidae (Acari, Prostigmata) From The French Alps (South-Eastern France), Acarologia 54 (1), pp. 15-37 : 16

Bryobia longisetis Reck, 1947 , comb. nov.

Bryobia longisetis Reck, 1947 , Soobshcheniya Akademii Nauk Gruzinskoi SSR, 8: 655

Type-species: female, Georgia ( Gruziya), from Salvia nemorosa and Salvia sp. (Labiatae).

Pseudobryobia longisetis ( Reck, 1947) , new combination. Wainstein, 1960, Trudy Nauchno-Issled. Inst. Zashchita Rastenii Kazakh., 5: 113

Since the reinstatement of the genus Pseudobryobia by Livshits and Mitrofanov (1972) and by Baker and Tuttle (1972), the main diagnostic characters that are listed in the diagnosis of this genus are the following: i) prodorsum without anterior projections over gnathosoma, ii) hysterosomal dorsocentral setae in the normal longitudinal dorsal position (f 1 setae in normal position, more or less aligned with first 3 pairs, not marginal), iii) coxal setal formula: 2-2-1-1.

According to the literature compiled we came to the conclusion that this species should not belong to the genus Pseudobryobia . First, the absence of prodorsal lobe over the gnathosoma can be questioned. In its original description, Reck (1947) reported that the outer prodorsal lobes are small but inners are cone-shaped almost fully fused. In the drawings of this species by Bagdasarian (1957), Reck (1959), Wainstein (1960) and Livshits and Mitrofanov (1966), inner and outer prodorsal lobes are similar to those previously described by Reck (1947): outer lobes are actually reduced to small tubercles but inner ones are coalescent into a tall cone with a small incision at the apex. Second, the dorsal pattern observed in this species does not correspond to that typical of the genus. Members of the fourth pair of hysterosomal dorsocentral setae (f 1) are never more or less in line with other dorsocentral setae. In the drawings of Bagdasarian (1957) and Reck (1959), f 1 setae are clearly located in marginal position, close (but not contiguous) to f 2. In Wainstein (1960) and Livshits and Mitrofanov (1971), f 1 setae are almost in marginal position, they are not in the normal longitudinal dorsal position and the distance between them is superior to that between f 2 setae. Finally, the coxal chaetotaxy does not fit with that of species belonging to the genus Pseudobryobia . In the descriptions of this species given by Wainstein (1960) and by Livshits and Mitrofanov (1971), only one setae is present on the coxa II (coxal formula 2-1-1-1). Thus it is different to that of the genus Pseudobryobia and corresponds to that observed in the genus Bryobia . Although we did not had an opportunity to examine the holotype (or types), given the morphological characters cited above we consider that this species belongs to the genus Bryobia .