Brueelia (Painjunirmus) chilchil (Ansari, 1955)

Figs 1–8

Brueelia chilchil Ansari, 1955: 53–54 .

Brueelia chilchil Ansari, 1956b: 394; primary homonym.

Brueelia chilchil Ansari, 1958: 48–49, figs 9–15; primary homonym.

Brueelia chilchil – Ansari 1956a: 160, figs 63–66. — Price et al. 2003: 154. — Gustafsson & Bush 2017: 37–38. — Mey 2017: 158.

Type material

Neotype PAKISTAN • ♂; Faisalabad [as Lyallpur]; 11 May 1932; M.A.R. Ansari leg.; ex Argya caudata eclipes (Hume, 1877); NHMUK010670544; NHMUK.

Other material examined

INDIA • 1 ♂, 2 ♀♀; Rajputana; Mar. 1937; R. Meinertzhagen leg.; ex Argya caudata eclipes [as Turdoides c. caudata or Argya caudata caudata]; 8922; NHMUK010709538; NHMUK • 1 ♂, 2 ♀♀; 3 Jan. 1952; Bharatpur [Rajasthan]; R. Meinertzhagen leg.; ex Argya caudata eclipes [as Turdoides c. caudata or Argya caudata caudata]); 19670, Brit. Mus. 1952-143; NHMUK010708235; NHMUK.

PAKISTAN • 2 ♀♀; same data as for neotype; ex Argya caudata eclipes [as Turdoides c. caudata or Argya caudata caudata]); NHMUK010670544; NHMUK • 6 ♂♂, 9 ♀♀; Peshawar; Mar. 1937; R. Meinertzhagen leg.; ex Argya caudata eclipes [as Turdoides c. caudata or Argya caudata caudata]); 9193–94, 9501; NHMUK010709539; NHMUK • 4 ♂♂, 16 ♀♀; same data as for preceding; 9445–47; NHMUK010709540; NHMUK .

Type host

Argya caudata eclipes (Hume, 1877) – common babbler.

Type locality

Faisalabad, Pakistan.

Description

Both sexes

Head convex dome-shaped (Fig. 3), lateral margins of preantennal area convex, frons concave. Marginal carina moderately displaced and much widened at osculum, lateral sections slender, with slightly irregular median margin. Ventral anterior plate visible. Head chaetotaxy as in Fig. 3. Extent of head pigmentation variable, extreme illustrated in Fig. 3; in many specimens area around anterior to s3 not darkly pigmented. Thoracic and abdominal segments as in Figs 1–2; proepimera with dark brown pigmentation; metepisterna, meso- and metasterna, lateral margins of tergopleurites II–VIII, and anterior and posterior sections of sternal plates with medium brown pigmentation in males and paler brown pigmentation in females.

Male

Scape as in Fig. 3. Thoracic and abdominal chaetotaxy as in Fig. 1; aps absent from tergopleurite III; tps present on tergopleurites VI–VIII; 3 ps on each of segments III–VII. Sternal plates with variable lateral extensions. Subgenital plate largely translucent, except antero-lateral corners or anterior section, which is medium brown. Basal apodeme roughly rectangular (Fig. 5). Proximal mesosome slender, rectangular, anterior margin more or less flat (Fig. 6). Mesosomal lobes with near-parallel lateral margins distally, antero-lateral horns wide, curved slightly medianly. Rugose area of distal mesosomal lobes extensive, pmes as in Fig. 6. Gonopore large, distal margin deeply concave; ames as in Fig. 6; penile arms reach to or slightly beyond distal margin of mesosomal lobes. Parameres elongated, pst1–2 as in Fig. 7.

MEASUREMENTS (n = 9, except TL where n = 8). TL = 1.45–1.68; HL = 0.37–0.39; HW = 0.31–0.34; PRW = 0.19–0.21; PTW = 0.32–0.35; AW = 0.47–0.51.

Female

Scape as in Fig. 4. Thoracic and abdominal chaetotaxy as in Fig. 2; segments II–VIII with 3 ps on each side. Sternal plates with variable lateral extensions. Subgenital plate broad, with broad connection to cross-piece (Fig. 8); pigmentation variable, typically with antero-lateral corners pale brown as in Fig. 8, but pigmented areas may be medianly continuous; in some specimens extent of pigmentation more similar to that of P. magnini (Fig. 40). Vulval margin bulging medianly (Fig. 8), with 3–4 short, slender vms and 4–5 short, thorn-like vss on each side; 4–5 short, slender vos on each side of subgenital plate; distal 1 vos median to vss.

MEASUREMENTS (n = 25 except TL where n = 22 and AW where n = 23). TL = 1.78–2.15 (1.95); HL = 0.40–0.46 (0.42); HW = 0.35–0.40 (0.37); PRW = 0.20–0.24 (0.22); PTW = 0.30–0.41 (0.36); AW = 0.53–0.64 (0.58).

Remarks

See remarks under Br. (P.) pengya Ansari, 1947, for a discussion on Mey’s (2017) claims regarding Br. (P.) chilchil . We have decided to simplify matters by designating a neotype for Brueelia chilchil Ansari, 1955 . The selection of this specimen is based on the following arguments:

1) Ansari (1955) did not specify any collection locality of his specimens, nor did he give any indication of how many specimens were examined. Later, Ansari (1956a) gave more information, including 35 specimens from Lyallpur erroneously referred to as “ paratypes ”, which is invalid as paratypes must be designated in the original publication. Ansari (1956a) also mentioned the examination of 3 specimens from Bharatpur (Rajputana), which were from the Meinertzhagen collection.

2) No identification numbers of any of these specimens were given, but Ansari (1956a: 133) stated that all types are in the NHMUK collection. As stated by Naz et al. (2020), only three specimens from Lyallpur remain at the NHMUK. This slide is labeled with a red T on the front, and an additional label on the reverse saying “(paratypes?)”. While this implies that someone, possibly Ansari, considered these specimens to be types, the significance of the red T has been lost; it is not found on other slides Ansari deposited at the NHMUK.

3) The specimens at NHMUK may be from the set of specimens considered “ paratypes ” by Ansari (1956a). However, this cannot be ascertained today; nor could any of them be designated the lectotype, as no paratypes were mentioned at the original description (Ansari 1955). To avoid any future confusion around the identity of this species, we designate the male on this slide the neotype, whereas the females on this slide have no special status.