Nitzschinirmus Mey & Barker, 2014

Gustafsson, Daniel R., Bush, Sarah E. & Palma, Ricardo L., 2019, The genera and species of the Brueelia - complex (Phthiraptera: Philopteridae) described by Mey (2017), Zootaxa 4615 (2), pp. 252-284 : 255

Status of Nitzschinirmus Mey & Barker, 2014

Molecular data indicate that the type species of Nitzschinirmus Mey & Barker, 2014 is firmly nested within Guimaraesiella ( Bush et al. 2015, 2016). Nevertheless, Mey (2017: 91) argues that despite this placement, there “gar nicht zur Debatte stehen kann” (= “can be no debate”) that Nitzschnirmus is a valid genus, and lists it as such in his Appendix III. We disagree with this statement.

The type species of Nitzschinirmus is Nirmus menuraelyrae Coinde, 1859 . We agree with Mey & Barker (2014) that this is a morphologically very distinct species. However, apart from the peculiar abdominal chaetotaxy and the sexually dimorphic antennae, there are very few characters that actually separate N. menuraelyrae from other species of Guimaraesiella . We find the genetic placement of this species within Clade A-1 by Bush et al. (2015, 2016: 741; fig. 3a; specimen 129) consistent with other morphological characters. Statistical support for the placement of N. menuraelyrae in this clade is high ( Bush et al. 2015, 2016). Whatever the correct generic name for this clade is, N. menuraelyrae belongs within it.

Prior to 2014, the clade of lice to which N. menuraelyrae belongs has been given four different names: Guimaraesiella Eichler, 1949 , Xobugirado Eichler, 1949 , Allobrueelia Eichler, 1951 [described as new a second time by Eichler (1952)], and Allonirmus Złotorzycka 1964 . Gustafsson & Bush (2017: 220–221) considered Xobugirado , Allobrueelia , and Allonirmus to be indistinguishable from Guimaraesiella . Moreover, the type species of Guimaraesiella was included in the phylogeny of Bush et al. (2015, 2016: 741; fig. 3a; specimens 175 and 176), and placed in the same clade as N. menuraelyrae , with high support. In conclusion, the resurrection of Nitzschinirmus from synonymy under Guimaraesiella is unjustified. Furthermore, accepting Nitzschinirmus as a distinct genus would mean that Guimaraesiella , as characterised genetically by Bush et al. (2015, 2016) and morphologically by Gustafsson & Bush (2017), would need to be divided into dozens of small, monotypic genera to avoid paraphyly. Virtually all of these genera would be morphologically indistinguishable from each other, which would substantially hinder future taxonomic work.