Morphological revision of the hyperdiverse Brueelia - complex (Insecta: Phthiraptera: Ischnocera: Philopteridae) with new taxa, checklists and generic key
Author
Bush, Sarah E.
text
Zootaxa
2017
2017-08-31
4313
1
1
443
journal article
32249
10.11646/zootaxa.4313.1.1
d8cc2cd8-8410-49aa-a75d-7a41d9f52b26
1175-5326
883161
A5Fdfba5-F992-44A8-84C2-1756C943C19B
Corvonirmus
Eichler, 1944
Docophorus
Nitzsch, 1818
: 289
(
in partim
).
Nirmus
Nitzsch, 1818
: 291
(
in partim
).
Degeeriella
Neumann, 1906
: 60
(
in partim
).
Brueelia
Kéler, 1936a
: 257
(
in partim
).
Corvonirmus
Eichler, 1944
: 80
.
Type species.
Nirmus uncinosus
Burmeister, 1838
: 430
, by original designation.
Diagnosis.
Corvonirmus
is superficially similar to
Hecatrishula
n. gen.
, expecially the
He
.
atherae
species group, with which it shares the following characters: tergopleurites reduced, not or barely reaching lateral margins of abdomen (
Figs 130–131
,
319–320
); one or more fenestrae on tergopleurites, which may be perforated medianly (
Figs 130–131
,
319–320
); pigmentation limited; dorsal preantennal suture absent (
Figs 132
,
321
); marginal carina not interrupted but displaced dorsally and posteriorly at osculum (
Figs 132
,
321
); antennae may be sexually dimorphic (
Figs 132–133
,
319–320
); accessory
sts
on at least some segments in both sexes (
Figs 130–131
,
319– 320
);
ppss
median to pronotal spiracle opening (
Figs 130–131
,
319–320
);
psps
present on tergopleurite III in both sexes (
Figs 130–131
,
319–320
);
tps
present on tergopleurites III–IV in at least male (
Figs 130–131
,
319–320
).
Corvonirmus
can be separated from
Hecatrishula
by the following characters:
aps
present on at least some segments in male
Corvonirmus
(
Table 2
), but absent in all segments in
Hecatrishula
; female subgenital plate flares into cross-piece in
Corvonirmus
(
Fig. 326
) but not in
Hecatrishula
(
Fig. 137
);
tps
present on tergopleurite II in female
Hecatrishula
(
Fig. 131
) but absent in female
Corvonirmus
(
Fig. 320
);
as3
is present in both sexes of
Hecatrishula
(
Fig. 132
), but is absent in
Corvonirmus
(
Fig. 321
). Males of
Corvonirmus
are best separated from male
Hecatrishula
by the genitalia: proximal mesosome small with little or no overlap with basal apodeme in
Hecatrishula
(
Fig. 134
), whereas in
Corvonirmus
(
Fig. 323
) the proximal mesosome is large and overlaps substantially with the basal apodeme; parameral heads complicated and at least bifid (
Fig. 136
) in
Hecatrishula
, but rectangular and folded medianly in
Corvonirmus
(
Fig. 325
); mesosomal lobes splayed, not fused distally in
Hecatrishula
(
Figs 135
), but gently rounded, fused distally in
Corvonirmus
(
Figs 323–324
); parameres strongly convergent distal to mesosome in
Hecatrishula
(
Fig. 134
), but much elongated and gently tapering in
Corvonirmus
(
Fig. 325
);
pst1
lateral microseta in
Hecatrishula
(
Fig. 136
), but central sensillus in
Corvonirmus
(
Fig. 325
).
Description.
Both sexes
. Head indented-dome shaped (
Fig. 321
), but variable between species. Marginal carina uninterrupted, displaced dorsally and posteriorly at osculum. Ventral carinae typically continuous with marginal carina. Dorsal preantennal suture, dorsal anterior plate, and ventral anterior plate absent. Head setae as in
Fig. 321
;
as3
absent;
pns
microseta. Preantennal nodi large, often with “hollowed-out” look. Coni typically broad but short, blunt, largely triangular. Antennae typically sexually dimorphic, scapes longer and thicker in males than in females; in some species antennae are almost monomorphic. Preocular nodi located median to eyes. Temporal carinae not visible;
mts
3
only macrosetae. Gular plate triangular. Patterns of pigmentation on head often diagnostic to species level.
Prothorax rectangular (
Figs 319–320
);
ppss
located median to spiracle opening. Proepimera slender, long, reaching around coxae II. Pterothorax pentagonal; lateral margins widely divergent; posterior margin convergent to median point;
mms
widely separated medianly. Meso- and metasterna not fused; 1 seta on posterior margin on each side of each plate. Metepisterna slender, median ends blunt. Leg chaetotaxy as in
Fig. 25
, except
fI-p2
absent;
fI-v4
long, spike-like.
Abdomen broad, rounded (
Figs 319–320
), largely translucent, with tergopleurites and sternal plates densely pigmented. Abdominal chaetotaxy as in
Table 2
; accessory sternal setae may be present. Tergopleurites do not or just barely reach the lateral margins of the abdomen; often much reduced (except in Indo-Malayan and Australasian species) to small, roughly hook-shaped plates; one or more fenestrae on most tergopleurites, the median-most of which may be penetrated medianly; tergopleurites II–IX+X in male and II–VIII in female widely separated medianly. Pleural incrassations typically absent, but narrow incrassations present on at least some tergopleurites in some Indo-Malayan and Australasian species (not illustrated). Sternal plates rectangular, wide, short, not approaching lateral margins of abdomen.
Male
subgenital plate broadly triangular, reaching posterior margin of abdomen. Female subgenital plate roughly triangular, reaching to vulval margin. Lateral submarginal extensions or cross-piece present. Abdominal chaetotaxy as in
Table 2
and
Figs 319–320
. Vulval margin (
Fig. 326
) with slender
vms
, thorn-like
vss
;
vos
follows lateral margins of subgenital plate.
Male
genitalia (
Figs 323–325
) large, often reaching anteriorly to segment V or VI, variable in shape. Basal apodeme rounded or rectangular. Proximal mesosome large, rectangular, overlapping with basal apodeme. Prominent ventral ridges converge on gonopore. Gonopore (
Fig. 324
) subterminal, open distally, with broad, scaled lateral extensions. Mesosomal lobes broad, blunt, fused distally; 2
ames
microsetae on each side submedianly anterior to gonopore; 1
pmes
sensillus on each side on lateral extensions of gonopore; 1
pmes
sensillus on each side on lateral margin of mesosome. Parameral heads (
Fig. 325
) folded, more or less rectangular, typically oblique. Parameral blades elongated, triangular;
pst1–2
sensilla, central, near distal end of parameres.
Host distribution.
Species of
Corvonirmus
are known only from members of the host genus
Corvus
Linnaeus, 1758
.
Geographical range.
Global except the Neotropics. This may reflect the fact that, apart from
Central
America and the Caribbean, there are no species of the genus
Corvus
in the Neotropics (
Madge
& Burn 1999
).
Remarks.
In the phylogeny of Bush
et al
. (2016),
Corvonirmus
was represented by only two species, which were placed in disparate parts of the tree, in both cases with very low support. Thus we cannot be certain about this phylogenetic placement. Future phylogenetic analyses with additional species will help to elucidate the position of
Corvonirmus
within the
Brueelia
-complex.
Included species
*
Corvonirmus afzali
(
Ansari, 1957a: 154
)
n. comb.
[in
Brueelia
]
*
Corvonirmus argulus
(
Burmeister, 1838: 430
)
[in
Nirmus
]
[1]
*
Corvonirmus hamatofasciatus
(
Piaget, 1890: 225
)
n. comb.
[in
Docophorus
]
*
Corvonirmus latifasciatus
(
Piaget, 1880: 143
)
n. comb.
[in
Nirmus
]
*
Corvonirmus leucocephalus
(Nitzsch [in
Giebel], 1866
: 365
)
n. comb.
[in
Nirmus
]
*
Corvonirmus mollii
(
Ansari, 1957a: 160
)
n. comb.
[in
Brueelia
]
*
Corvonirmus perwienae
(
Ansari, 1957a: 168
)
n. comb.
[in
Brueelia
]
*
Corvonirmus quadrangularis
(
Rudow, 1869: 18
)
n. comb.
[in
Nirmus
]
Nirmus bipunctatus
Rudow, 1870
: 467
*
Corvonirmus rotundatus
(
Osborn, 1896: 226
)
n. comb.
[in
Nirmus
]
*
Corvonirmus saliemi
(
Ansari, 1957a: 158
)
n. comb.
[in
Brueelia
]
*
Corvonirmus tasniemae
(
Ansari, 1957a: 152
)
[in
Brueelia
]
*
Corvonirmus theresae
(
Ansari, 1957a: 150
)
n. comb.
[in
Brueelia
]
*
Corvonirmus uncinosus
(
Burmeister, 1838: 430
)
[in
Nirmus
]
Brueelia uncinosa plena
Ansari, 1957a
: 158
*
Corvonirmus variegatus
(
Ansari, 1957a: 153
)
n. comb.
[in
Brueelia
]
[1]
Ansari (1957b: 157)
stated that material from
Corvus corax ruficollis
[as
Corvus ruficollis
] in the Meinertzhagen collection was "indistinguishable" from
Brueelia argula
. Further, he noted (
ibid
.: 163) that additional material from the same host species was indistinguishable from
Brueelia atherae
. In both cases, Ansari refers to 20 males and 6 females. All the material we have examined from this host in the Meinertzhagen collection belongs to an undescribed species of
Hecatrishula
. We assume that
Ansari (1957b)
inadvertently referred to the same material twice, and therefore we have removed
Corvus ruficollis
as a host of
Corvonirmus argulus
.