Oxylipeurus, MJOBERG, 1910

Mey, Eberhard, 2013, Chewing lice (Insecta, Phthiraptera) off Bruijn’s Brush-turkey Aepypodius bruijnii from New Guinea (AVes, Galliformes, Megapodiidae), Beiträge Zur Entomologie = Contributions to Entomology 63 (2), pp. 313-323 : 316-319

“ Oxylipeurus ” aepypodius CLAY, 1938

( Figs 13-14 )

Host: Aepypodius bruijnii (OUSTALET, 1880) .

Material examined:

1 ♂ (without head; M. 3844. a) off an old skin (C 8228) from Laglaize, Waigeo, in MTKD, leg. E. Mey (30.x.1992) .

Diagnosis:

Despite its missing head, the only available male specimen can almost certainly be identified as O. aepypodius CLAY, 1938 (type host: Aepypodius arfakianus ), since there are hardly any visible differences, even in the form of the genitalia. The shape of the genital apparatus shows very slight but constant differences (see Figs 13 and 14 ), but it is unknown if they are determined perhaps by the preparation or by variation; if they exist in natura then these distinguishing characters would point to at least a subspecific differentiation. However these points can only be clarified by having a wider range of authenticated material to work on.

Measurements:

PW 0.20, MW 0.30, AW 0.40.

Remarks:

Allied to these problems is the still open question of the generic classification of “ Oxylipeurus aepypodius CLAY, 1938 ” and “ Lipeurus ischnocephalus TASCHENBERG, 1882 ” (type host: Alectura lathami ), which here remain in Oxylipeurus , although with reservations. Both species are easily separable (e.g., by head shape, clearer in males than females, and by male genitalia), but they also share some synapomorphies, such as the characteristic suite of macrochaetae frontally on the clypeal carina in males, and their unique genital region structure. These characters indicate an independent development that should find its expression in nomenclature. A close relationship to Talegallipeurus is unmistakable, and if it was to be confirmed that Talegallipeurus spp. and “ O.” aepypodius or ischnocephalus exist synhospitalically, then more than just a separation at the subgenus level would be called for (see v. KÉLER 1958, MEY 1990).

7 8

Figs 5-8: Megathellipeurus spp. , males: 5. shape of head of M. jonesi . – 6. dito M. mumesensis sp. n. – 7. Genitalia (terminalia part only) of M. jonesi . – 8. dito M. mumesensis sp. n. – Scale 0.1 mm.

9 10

Figures

Figs 13-14: Male genitalia of “Oxylipeurus” aepypodius 13. ex Aepypodius arfakianus. – 14. ex A. bruijnii. – Scale 0.1 mm.