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 Motmotnirmus Mey & Barker, 2014 Nirmus Nitzsch, 1818 : 291 ( in partim ). Degeeriella Neumann, 1906 : 60 ( in partim ). Brueelia Kéler, 1936a : 257 ( in partim ). “ Momotiella” Eichler, 1946 nomen nudum . Motmotnirmus Mey & Barker, 2014 : 94 . Type species. Nirmus marginellus Nitzsch [in Giebel], 1866 : 368, by original designation. Diagnosis. Motmotnirmus was placed, with strong support, as sister to Meropoecus in the phylogeny of Bush et al . (2016). In both Motmotnirmus ( Fig. 504 ) and Meropoecus ( Figs 494 , 499 ), mts 2 is longer than mts 1 , but Motmotnirmus and Meropoecus are otherwise not very similar. In Meropoecus ( Figs 496 , 501 ) the female subgenital plate has broad lateral submarginal extensions, and the vss and vms are mixed and do not form separate sets, whereas in Motmotnirmus ( Fig. 508 ) there are no lateral submarginal extensions, and the vss and vms form separate sets. The male genitalia of Motmotnirmus ( Figs 505–507 ) are more similar to those of Brueelia s. str. ( Figs 45–47 ) than to those of Meropoecus ( Figs 495 , 500 ). The placement of Motmotnirmus near Meropoecus in the phylogeny of Bush et al . (2016) is inconsistent with morphological characters, and warrants further investigation. Description. Both sexes . Head rounded pentagonal ( Fig. 504 ). Marginal carina narrowly interrupted only dorsally, deeply displaced at clypeo-labral suture. The displaced section of the marginal carina is roughly Ushaped. Dark but diffuse arch often present anterior to displaced section of marginal carina. Ventral carinae almost reach anterior end of head, but not continuous with the marginal carina. Dorsal preantennal suture very slender, interrupting marginal carina only dorsally, and only reaching dsms ; in older material this suture is often hard to see. Ventral anterior plate absent. Head setae as in Fig. 504 ; pns absent. Preantennal nodi large. Coni small, conical. Antennae monomorphic. Temporal carinae not visible; mts 2–3 both macrosetae. Gular plate spade-shaped. Prothorax rectangular ( Figs 502–503 ); ppss on postero-lateral corners. Proepimera broad; median ends hammer-shaped. Pterothorax pentagonal; lateral margins widely divergent, bulging slightly at postero-lateral corners; posterior margin vaguely convergent to rounded median point, which is more obvious in females than in males; mms narrowly separated medianly. Metepisterna associated with large lateral nodi; median ends blunt. Meso- and metasterna not fused, the former with 1 seta on each side, and the latter with 2 setae on each side. Leg chaetotaxy as in Fig. 25 except fI-p2–4, fI-v4, fII-v2, fIII-v2 absent. Abdomen oval ( Figs 502–503 ), weakly pigmented. Tergopleurites rectangular; tergopleurites II–IX+X in male and tergopleurites II–VIII in female narrowly divided medianly. Sternal plates absent, but ventral tegument with reticulations. Pleural incrassations large. Ventral section of tergo-pleurites wide. Re-entrant heads large, blunt. Male subgenital plate trapezoidal, reaching posterior margin of abdomen. Female abdominal plate roughly triangular, reaching vulval margin but does not flare into cross-piece ( Fig. 508 ). Abdominal chaetotaxy as in Table 2 . Vulval margin ( Fig. 508 ) with short, slender vms , thorn-like vss ; vos follow lateral margins of subgenital plate; distal vos situated on plate, median to vss . Basal apodeme ( Fig. 505 ) long, rectangular. Proximal mesosome half-oval, overlapping basal apodeme. Gonopore ( Fig. 506 ) narrowly open distally. Mesosomal lobes relatively small, rugose, thickened distally; 2 pmes sensilla on each side postero-lateral to gonopore. Parameral heads ( Fig. 507 ) bifid. Parameral blades wide, roughly triangular; pst1 sensilla, central; pst2 microsetae, central to submarginal on lateral margin of parameres. Host distribution. Species of Motmotnirmus are limited to members of the family Momotidae , where they are known from the genera Momotus Brisson, 1760 and Baryphthengus Cabanis & Heine, 1859 . Motmotnirmus guatemalensis ( Dalgleish, 1971 ) was described from a single pair of lice collected from Campephilus guatemalensis (Hartlaub, 1844) , a woodpecker ( Piciformes ), but it is possible that they were contaminants or stragglers. Geographical range. Neotropics. Remarks. Motmotnirmus Mey & Barker, 2014 was erected for the Brueelia s. lat. parasitising species of Momotidae . In the phylogeny of Bush et al . (2016), Motmotnirmus was placed as sister to Meropoecus but, morphologically, it does not appear to be particularly close to Meropoecus . Both of these genera parasitise birds in the order Coraciiformes , but the host family Momotidae is not closely related to the Meropidae (Espinosa de los Monteros 1999 ), the host family parasitised by Meropoecus . All species of Motmotnirmus are very similar, especially the females. Nevertheless, there are small, consistent differences among material collected from different host-species, suggesting that there may be many undescribed species in this genus. Molecular data will be particularly helpful in determining whether Motmotnirmus lice infesting multiple host species exhibit intraspecific variation, or they are distinct species. Included species * Motmotnirmus guatemalensis ( Dalgleish, 1971: 140 ) [in Brueelia ] [1] * Motmotnirmus humphreyi ( Oniki & Emerson, 1982: 263 ) [in Brueelia ] * Motmotnirmus marginellus (Nitzsch [in Giebel], 1866 : 368 ) [in Nirmus ] [2] * Motmotnirmus xilitla ( Carriker, 1954: 200 ) [in Brueelia ] [3] [1] The male genitalia and other characters of this species are very similar to those of Mt . marginellus , and it seems likely that Dalgleish's specimens were contaminants or stragglers. Mey & Barker (2014) suggested that Mt . guatemalensis may be a synonym of Mt . marginellus ; however, these two species differ in abdominal chaetotaxy (male Mt . marginellus do not have tps on tergopleurite VI, whereas Mt . guatemalensis have tps on this segment). We recognise both species as valid until additional material from the type hosts can be studied to establish their correct status. [2] Eichler (1952) tentatively included Mt . marginellus in his new genus Allobrueelia , but no justification was provided for that placement. We here place the genus Allobrueelia as a junior synonym of Guimaraesiella (see above). Morphologically, Mt. marginellus is only superficially similar to Guimaraesiella , but genetically is very distantly related to Guimaraesiella (Bush et al . 2016, specimen 138). [3] Oniki & Emerson (1982) considered Br . marginella xilitla a synonym of Br . marginella , but Price et al . (2003) considered it a separate species. Mey & Barker (2014) noted this discrepancy, but retained Mt . xilitla as a separate species, without further comment. We follow Price et al . (2003) in regarding it as a dictinct species.