Cuculiphilus (Aegypiphilus) gypsis ( Eichler, 1944 )

Shrestha, Pratichhya & Dik, Bilal, 2019, Chewing lice from the white-rumped vulture in Nepal, with description of a new species of Aegypoecus, Zootaxa 4691 (5), pp. 491-500 : 497

Cuculiphilus (Aegypiphilus) gypsis ( Eichler, 1944)

( Figs 17–20 )

Aegypiphilus gypsis Eichler, 1944: 57 , fig. 1.

Aegypiphilus contrastus Eichler & Złotorzycka, 1963b: 216 , pl. III, fig. 11.

Aegypiphilus secundus Eichler & Złotorzycka, 1963b: 217 , pl. III, fig. 12.

Cuculiphilus (Aegypiphilus) gypsis ( Eichler, 1944) : Scharf & Price 1965: 553.

Cuculiphilus (Aegypiphilus) gypsis ( Eichler, 1944) : Price & Emerson 1967: 250.

Material examined: 1♂, 4♀, Gyps bengalensis , Nepal .

Female ( Fig. 18 ) with two rows of ctenidia on abdominal sternites III (32 and 45 setae) and IV (27 and 37 setae); male ( Fig. 17 ) with two rows of ctenidia on sternite III (15 and 35 setae) and IV (35 and 41 setae), and three rows of ctenidia on sternite V (3, 32 and 26 setae). Prosternal plate trapezoidal, concave anteriorly and tapering posteriorly, with anterolateral extensions, only seen in females ( Fig. 19 ). Male genitalia as in Fig. 20 .

Measurements: (1 male): HL 0.40 mm; HW 0.66 mm; HI 0.60; MtW 0.69 mm; AL 0.71 mm; AW 0.84 mm; ToL 1.52 mm.

Measurements: (4 females): HL 0.47 mm (0.45–0.49); HW 0.77 mm (0.73–0.78); HI 0.62 (0.61–0.63); MtW 0.71 mm (0.68–0.73); AL 1.18 mm (1.11–1.29); AW 1.02 mm (0.93–1.06); ToL 2.16 mm (1.96–2.27).

Remarks. Some morphological features could not be seen in detail because our specimens are not in perfect condition. However, we are confident that our identification based on Scharf & Price (1965) is correct. Cuculiphilus (Aegypiphilus) gypsis was described from Gyps fulvus (Hablitz, 1783) . Although Eichler’s (1944) description was not detailed, he illustrated the female. Eichler & Złotorzycka (1963b) described Aegypiphilus contrastus from Gyps bengalensis and Aegypiphilus secundus from Gyps rueppelli (A. Brehm, 1852) . Scharf & Price (1965) demoted Ae- gypiphilus to a subgenus of Cuculiphilus and regarded both Cuc. (Aegypiphilus) contrastus and Cuc. (Aegypiphilus) secundus as valid species due to lack of adequate material from their type hosts. Furthermore, Price & Emerson (1967) examined the holotype female of A. contrastus and the holotype male of A. secundus concluding that these two species were junior synonyms of Cuc. (Aegypiphilus) gypsis . Our specimens fit the original description of A. contrastus and that of Scharf & Price (1965). However, dimensions of our females of Cuculiphilus are closer to those in Eichler & Złotorzycka (1963b) than those given by Scharf & Price (1965). Also, our male is much smaller than those examined by Scharf & Price (1965). Therefore, our Cuculiphilus samples would be identified as Cuc. (Aegypiphilus) contrastus . However, considering that we accept Price & Emerson’s (1967) synonymies, we regard our material as belonging to Cuc. (Aegypiphilus) gypsis .

Figures

FIGURES 17–18. Cuculiphilus gypsis, habitus: 17, ventral view of male. 18, ventral view of female.

FIGURES 19–20. Cuculiphilus gypsis: 19, prosternal plate of female. 20, ventral view of terminal segments and genitalia.