Guimaraesiella (Malardifax) pandolura Gustafsson & Bush, 2017

Gustafsson, Daniel R. & Bush, Sarah E., 2022, Chewing lice of the Brueelia-complex (Phthiraptera: Ischnocera) parasitic on members of the Campephagidae (Aves: Passeriformes), with description of a new subgenus and 14 new species, Zootaxa 5165 (1), pp. 1-55 : 44

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.5165.1.1
publication LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:pub:A03F9711-19D7-4D7A-B30E-842DA141B2A0
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6825725
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B15059-B370-FFED-FF41-F9D0FCBDF82C
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Guimaraesiella (Malardifax) pandolura Gustafsson & Bush, 2017
status

Treatment

( Figs 91–94 View FIGURES 91–92 View FIGURES 93–94 , 101–106 View FIGURES 95–106 )

Type host. Pericrocotus speciosus semiruber Whistler & Kinnear, 1933 – scarlet minivet.

Type locality. Pang La , Lampang Province, Thailand .

Other hosts. Pericrocotus ethologus laetus Mayr, 1940 – long-tailed minivet new host record. Pericrocotus roseus stanfordi Vaughan & Jones, 1913 – rosy minivet new host record.

Diagnosis. As specimens of Gu. (Ma.) pandolura from P. ethologus laetus ( Figs 91–94 View FIGURES 91–92 View FIGURES 93–94 , 101–103 View FIGURES 95–106 ) and P. roseus stanfordi ( Figs 104–106 View FIGURES 95–106 ) are morphologically very similar to specimens from the type host (see Gustafsson & Bush 2017; figs 373–375), we consider the three populations as conspecific. Specimens from non-type hosts can be separated from specimens from the type host by the following characters: male abdominal segment V with two ps on each side in specimens from P. e. laetus ( Figs 91–92 View FIGURES 91–92 ) and P. r. stanfordi (not shown), but with 1 ps on each side in specimens from the type host; ventral sclerite of mesosome with proximal thickening in specimens from type host, but without thickening in specimens from P. e. laetus ( Fig. 102 View FIGURES 95–106 ) and P. r. stanfordi ( Fig. 105 View FIGURES 95–106 ); overall shape of mesosome differing between specimens from all three host species ( Figs 101–102, 104–105 View FIGURES 95–106 ); rugose area of ventral mesosome more extensive in specimens from type host than in specimens from P. e. laetus ( Fig. 102 View FIGURES 95–106 ) and P. r. stanfordi ( Fig. 105 View FIGURES 95–106 ); parameres proportionately longer and stouter in specimens from P. e. laetus ( Fig. 103 View FIGURES 95–106 ) than in specimens from the type host, but parameres of specimens from P. r. stanfordi largely identical to those of specimens from the type host ( Fig. 106 View FIGURES 95–106 ). No characters reliably separate females from P. e laetus ( Fig. 94 View FIGURES 93–94 ) from those from the type host, as subgenital plates are somewhat variable in shape distally between specimens, and vulval chaetotaxy overlaps. Females of the population infesting P. r. stanfordi are unknown.

Description. Both sexes. Head broad, rounded trapezoidal ( Fig. 93 View FIGURES 93–94 ), lateral margins of preantennal head concave, frons broadly concave. Marginal carina slender, interrupted laterally and submedianly. Dorsal preantennal suture reaches dsms, ads, lateral margin of head, and completely separates dorsal anterior plate. Dorsal anterior plate with concave anterior margin, convex lateral margins, and more or less flat posterior margin. Ventral anterior plate elongated crescent-shaped. Head chaetotaxy as in Fig. 93 View FIGURES 93–94 . Preantennal nodi slender, but turned medianly, bulging. Preocular nodi larger than postocular nodi. Marginal temporal carina narrow, or more of less even width. Gular plate with concave lateral margins converging to median point. Thoracic and abdominal segments as in Figs 91–92 View FIGURES 91–92 .

Males from Pericrocotus ethologus laetus . Thoracic and abdominal chaetotaxy as in Fig. 91 View FIGURES 91–92 ; abdominal segment V with 2 ps on each side. Basal apodeme rounded rectangular, with slightly concave lateral margins ( Fig. 101 View FIGURES 95–106 ). Proximal mesosome rounded, narrowing slightly distally ( Fig. 102 View FIGURES 95–106 ). Mesosomal lobes with convergent, more or less straight lateral margins. Ventral sclerite without proximal thickening; rugose area not reaching lateral margins of mesosome. Gonopore broadly rounded. Parameral heads broad ( Fig. 103 View FIGURES 95–106 ); parameral blades of more or less even width, somewhat rounded distally; pst1–2 as in Fig. 101 View FIGURES 95–106 ). Measurements as in Table 1 View TABLE 1 .

Males from Pericrocotus roseus stanfordi . Thoracic and abdominal chaetotaxy as above. Basal apodeme rounded proximally, lateral margins concave ( Fig. 104 View FIGURES 95–106 ). Proximal mesosome rounded rectangular ( Fig. 105 View FIGURES 95–106 ), with small bulge at about mid-length. Mesosomal lobes convergent, narrowing markedly near distal end. Ventral sclerite without proximal thickening; rugose area not reaching lateral margins of mesosome. Gonopore somewhat rounded quadratic. Parameral heads broad, extended slightly distally ( Fig. 106 View FIGURES 95–106 ); pst1–2 as in Fig. 104 View FIGURES 95–106 . Measurements as in Table 1 View TABLE 1 .

Females from Pericrocotus ethologus laetus . Thoracic and abdominal chaetotaxy as in Fig. 92 View FIGURES 91–92 . Subgenital plate pentagonal, median point almost reaching vulval margin ( Fig. 94 View FIGURES 93–94 ). Vulval margin bulging medianly, with 3–4 short, slender vms and 7–12 short, thorn-like vss on each side; 3–6 short, slender vos on each side of subgenital plate; distal 1 vos on each side near vss. Measurements as in Table 1 View TABLE 1 .

Female from Pericrocotus roseus stanfordi . Unknown.

Material examined (non-types): Ex Pericrocotus ethologus laetus : 1♂, 5♀, Kangpokpi , Manipur, India, 23 Jan. 1952, R . Meinertzhagen, 19836, B.M. 1952-143 ( NHML). Ex Pericrocotus roseus stanfordi : 1♂, Chiang Saen Kao , Chiang Rai province, Thailand, 20 Feb. 1953, R . E. Elbel & H.G. Deignan, RE-2300, RT-B-17805 ( BPBM) .

Remarks. We also examined a sample of two females from P. roseus stanfordi held in PIPR. However, as both lice have distorted abdomens with damaged distal ends, the shape of the subgenital plate and the vulval chaetotaxy could not be determined to identify them with certainty.