Weehalia hakalphila, Mey, 2013

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 : 320-322

Weehalia hakalphila n. sp.

(Figs 15, 19, Table 3)

Type host: Aepypodius bruijnii (OUSTALET, 1880) .

Material:

1 ♂ (M. 4387. b) off an old skin (no. 1; coll. Bruijn, ex coll. W. Rothschild, Tring) from Waigeo (no other data), in AMNH, leg. C. J. Heij & H. Post (12.i.1999) .

Holotype in NHMRud.

Diagnosis:

Male: very similar to W. fissus (RUDOw, 1869), but definitely smaller (see Table 3). The temporal corners are clearly swollen in fissus , in hakalphila almost straight, which, coupled with size, makes for a striking difference in the shape of the head (Figs 15-16). The solenoidal genital apparatus, along the entire length of the abdomen, is clearly constricted in its lower third in fissus , where there is a grip-like endosclerite, but this is not the case in hakalphila sp. n. (see Figs 17-19). Current illustrations of W. fissus genitalia ( CLAY 1940, MEY 1997b) show them with a partially erect preputial sac; here it is shown in a relaxed state (Figs 17-18).

Measurements: see Table 3.

Female: Unknown.

Remarks:

In addition to a large Weehalia series off Alectura lathami (= type host of “ Goniodes fissus RUDOw”), CLAY (1940: 112) examined 6 ♂, 7 ♀ ex Aepypodius arfakianus and 12 ♂, 13 ♀ “from skins of Aepypodius bruijnii (OUSTALET) from Waigou”, all of which she placed in fissus without comment. At least 1♂, 2♀ (prep. BM 3069) of W. fissus ex Alectura l. lathami from New South Wales,

Figs 15-16: Weehalia spp. , males: 15. shape of head of W. ha-

kalphila n. sp. – 16. dito W. fissus . – Scale 0.1 mm.

and also 3 ♂, 2 ♀, 1 larva (prep. MEINERTZHAGEN 11001) of the same species ex A. lathami from Queensland, were made available to me. On this basis it is impossible to determine whether the body measurements and setae numbers given by CLAY (1940: 111) are actually derived from the total material off the three host species mentioned above, or only from a part of it .

Two Weehalia ♀ ex Aepypodius arfakianus that I examined are distinctly smaller than a fissus ♀, and definitely not conspecific with it, but are probably very close to hakalphila .

Etymology:

Derived from Hakal, the usual name for Bruijn’s Bushturkey used on Waigeo (Lupintol) (after JONES et al. 1995; gender feminine), and the Greek phil = loving. very well to H. curtiprothorax MEY, 1982 (type host: Talegalla jobinensis longicauda ). In H. arfakianus and Homocerus sp. ex Aepypodius bruijnii , as in the species of Homocerus usually paired thoracic pleural sternites II and III are fused in a plate. Also the tergites IX+X and VIII on male anal conus are different in shape from those of H. curtiprothorax . Therefore, the supposition is not groundless that in Tendeiros’ description the host provenance on which aepypodius is based, is mistaken, and that in actual fact curtiprothorax is perhaps synonymous with aepypodius . The problem will doubtless be finally resolved in the course of the intended revision on the basis of type specimens comparisons of the genus Homocerus . For the actual publication date of Homocerus see MEY (2009: 185).

Measurements:

in this order of two males (prep. M. 3844.b, 4386.) and one female (prep. 3844.c): TL 1.05, 1.06, 1.30; HL 0.37, 0,39, 0,43; HW 0.34, 0.34, 0.42; HWT 0.51, 0.51, 0.60; HI 0.73, 0.76, 0.72; PW 0.25, 0.25, 0.27; MW 0.39, 0.39, 0.42; AW 0.61, 0.63, 0.73 .

Discussion

Figs 17-19: Genitalia of Weehalia spp. , males: 17-18. The fact that Aepypodius bruijnii , from an ornithological W. fissus . – 19. dito W. hakalphila n. sp. – Scale 0.1 mm. point of view, is obviously a good species in its own right

when compared with A. arfakianus and Talegalla spp. is how-

ever not adequately expressed in its chewing lice (referring to

the 7 species discussed here). This means that representatives

Genus Homocerus KÉLER, 1940 [„1939”] at least of the genera Talegalligogus , “ Oxylipeurus ”, and Tale-

gallipeurus have not yet attained species level in the course

Homocerus sp. of their isolated development from each other on their hosts

(5 recent species with altogether 10 subspecies, after JONES

Type host: Aepypodius bruijnii (OUSTALET, 1880) . et al. 1995), which probably had its beginnings in a common

ancestral form of Aepypodius and Talegalla . From a phthi-

Material examined: rapterological standpoint, this host group, today confined to 2 ♂ and 1 ♀ off two specimens, namely 1 ♂, 1 ♀ New Guinea, is most likely closest to the Australian Alectura (M. 3844. b-c) off skin C 8228 in MTKD, Laglaize, within the Megapodiidae ( MEY 1999) . Weehalia appears to Waigeu, leg. E. Mey (30.x.1992), and 1 ♂ (M. 4386.) give us a strong support in this direction. We can however off an old skin (no. 2; coll. Bruijn ex coll. W. Roths- state that Alectura on the one hand, and Aepypodius and Talechild, Tring) from Waigeo (no other data) in AMNH, galla on the other hand, harbor no conspecific chewing lice. leg. C. J. Heij & H. Post (12.xi.1999) .

The infestation of Bruijn’s Brush-turkey and Wattled Brush-

Remarks: turkey as reflected in the list of all chewing lice genera The specimens studied are very close to, but not recorded on the megapodes is presented in Table 4. This overconspecific with, Homocerus arfakianus (TENDEIRO, view makes one thing above all clear: the large gaps remain- 1983), since there are visible differences in the shape ing in our knowledge, here especially where the Amblycera of the unpaired terminalia sclerites in both sexes. are concerned. However, with the help of parasitophyletic Neither can they be assigned to H. aepypodius (TEN- deduction, it also enables us to see the emerging contours DEIRO, 1983). Tendeiro (1983: 118) described the of an internal systematic arrangement of the megapodes and species from a male and a female that came from the their differentiation from other galliform families. collection of K. C. Emerson, and for which there is no further information on their provenance than “ Aepy- What is noteworthy is the fact that only one species of podius bruijnii ” and “île Waigeu”. In my opinion, the chewing louse ( Megathellipeurus mumesensis n. sp., with original description and illustrations (Planche III, larvae and adults in large numbers) was retrieved from the Photo 1-2 in TENDEIRO, 1983) of H. aepypodius fit recently collected freshly dead Bruijn’s Brush-turkey, while

on each of three out of five old skins from the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century two species (single specimens) were recorded (see Table 5). One of these old skins harbored no chewing lice, and on each of two others one species was found. Whether these findings result from the collecting method, or reflect actual qualitative individual infestation, cannot be decided here. Whatever the case, we can surely expect further new chewing lice species from Bruijn’s Brush-turkey.