Oxylipeurus, Mjoberg, 1910

Gustafsson, Daniel R., Lei, Lujia, Chu, Xingzhi & Zou, Fasheng, 2020, Review of Chinese species of the Oxylipeurus - complex (Phthiraptera: Philopteridae), with descriptions of two new genera and five new species, Zootaxa 4742 (2), pp. 201-255 : 204-207

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.4742.2.1
publication LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:pub:CA0AD801-C329-4D41-B081-1647491DF842
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3684879
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03BA7024-9B1F-EC5F-55EF-FCBFFC8EF99E
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Oxylipeurus
status

Treatment

Oxylipeurus -complex

Afrilipeurus Mey, 2010: 100 .

Cataphractomimus new genus

Chelopistes Kéler, 1939: 180 .

Syn.: Virgula Clay, 1941: 119 .

Eiconolipeurus Carriker, 1945b: 91 .

Epicolinus Carriker, 1945b: 104 .

Megalipeurus Kéler, 1958: 327 .

Oxylipeurus Mjöberg, 1910: 91 .

Reticulipeurus Kéler, 1958: 332 .

Sinolipeurus new genus

Splendoroffula Clay & Meinertzhagen, 1941: 343 .

Syn.: Splendopeurus Kéler, 1958: 309 .

Talegallipeurus Mey, 1982: 242 .

Trichodomedea Carriker, 1945a: 365 .

Remarks. The genus Labicotes Kéler, 1939 may also belong in this complex. Kéler (1939) considered Labicotes to be “Übergangsglied” (= “intermediate”) between the Goniocotinae and the Chelopistinae, based on characters of the male and female terminalia. The male genital opening of Labicotes is ventral, as in the Oxylipeurus -complex, the male genitalia are similar to those of Chelopistes , and the temporal chaetotaxy of the two genera is the same ( Kéler 1939; Tendeiro 1975; Smith 2000). However, the abdominal chaetotaxy of the two known species of Labicotes is unlike that of any other genus of the Oxylipeurus -complex. No representative of Labicotes have been included in any of the larger molecular phylogenies of the Ischnocera (e.g. Cruickshank et al. 2001; Johnson et al. 2001) and we have seen no specimens. Smith (2000) included both Labicotes and Chelopistes in his morphological phylogeny, but they were not placed together; his analysis was based on the assumption that both these genera belonged to the Goniodidae , but no formal test of that hypothesis was performed. The presence of a stylus in Chelopistes males suggests this genus belongs to the Oxylipeurus -complex, despite their placement in Goniodidae by Smith (2000). However, as species of Labicotes have no stylus, we presently do not include this genus in the Oxylipeurus -complex.

Here, we deal with four of the above genera: Cataphractomimus , Megalipeurus , Reticulipeurus and Sinolipeurus .

Cataphractomimus new genus

Type species: Cataphractomimus impervius new species

Diagnosis. Cataphractomimus is most similar to Reticulipeurus . Lice of both genera are extensively reticulated, at least on the tergopleurites and sternites, although the extent of reticulation is variable within Reticulipeurus and some species have virtually no reticulation. The male genitalia have essentially the same structure in both genera.

However, these two genera can be separated by the following characters: (1) male stylus long, tongue-like, arising terminally on subgenital plate in Cataphractomimus ( Fig. 76 View FIGURES 76–78 ), but short and blunt, arising subterminally on subgenital plate in Reticulipeurus ( Fig. 79 View FIGURES 79–81 ); (2) male subgenital plate with lateral incisions between segments VIII and IX+X or with these segments completely separated in Cataphractomimus ( Fig. 1 View FIGURES 1–2 ), but always entire, without such lateral incisions in Reticulipeurus ( Fig. 7 View FIGURES 7–8 ); (3) male tergopleurite VIII medianly continuous in Cataphractomimus ( Fig. 1 View FIGURES 1–2 ), but medianly separate in Reticulipeurus ( Fig. 7 View FIGURES 7–8 ); (4) male tergopleurite IX+X not fused with tergopleurite XI in Cataphractomimus ( Fig. 1 View FIGURES 1–2 ), but fused in Reticulipeurus ( Fig. 7 View FIGURES 7–8 ); (5) postero-lateral corners of pteronotum extended posteriorly into a small “horn” in Cataphractomimus ( Fig. 1 View FIGURES 1–2 ), but without such extension in Reticulipeurus ( Fig. 7 View FIGURES 7–8 ); (6) differences in dorsal head chaetotaxy (see Table 2 View TABLE 2 ; Figs 92–93 View FIGURES 92–95 ); (7) female terminalia short and blunt in Cataphractomimus ( Fig. 2 View FIGURES 1–2 ) but extended distally in Reticulipeurus ( Fig. 8 View FIGURES 7–8 ); (8) female subgenital plate with lateral accessory sclerotised plates along vulval margin in Cataphractomimus (LAVP in Fig. 69 View FIGURES 69–70 ), but without such plates in Reticulipeurus ; (9) mandibular seta (mds) absent in Cataphractomimus ( Fig. 1 View FIGURES 1–2 ), but present as a microseta in Reticulipeurus ( Fig. 7 View FIGURES 7–8 ).

Description.

Both sexes. Large to very large species ( Table 1 View TABLE 1 ). Head slender, frons rounded ( Fig. 1 View FIGURES 1–2 ). Marginal carina uninterrupted. Dorsal preantennal suture present, limited to area around ads ( Fig. 4 View FIGURES 3–4 ), or absent ( Fig. 1 View FIGURES 1–2 ). Extensive internal thickenings present posterior to marginal carina across most of head. Head chaetotaxy as in Fig. 1 View FIGURES 1–2 : as2–3 marginal; avs3 situated far anterior, near vsms1–2; mds absent; mts3 macroseta; s1–7 present, sizes as in Fig. 92 View FIGURES 92–95 . Coni short, at most about half-length of female scape. Antennae sexually dimorphic ( Figs 1–2 View FIGURES 1–2 ): male scape, pedicel and flagellomere I modified ( Figs 21–23 View FIGURES 21–24 ). Eyes not prominent. Gular plate indistinct.

Prothorax with 1 dorsal anterior seta (pdas), 1 pronotal marginal-lateral seta (pmls) and 1 pronotal postspiracular seta (ppss) on each side. Pterothorax with 1 anterior and 1 posterior submarginal meso-metanotal seta (asmns and psmns, respectively), 1 pterothoracic trichoid seta (ptrs) and 1 pterothoracic thorn-like seta (pths) on each side. Marginal pterothoracic setae in two distinct clusters on each side. Leg chaetotaxy as in Fig. 88 View FIGURE 88 ; cII-a3 and cIII-a3 dorsal; tbII-p2–3 and tbIII-p2–3 large, seemingly soft and hyaline, distorted in some specimens. Posterolateral corners of pterothorax with horn-like posterior extension. Abdomen broad, with extensive reticulation across most of tergopleurites and sternal and subgenital plates.

Male. Scape with prominent tooth-like projection ( Figs 21–23 View FIGURES 21–24 ); flagellomere I with a distal hook-shaped extension, and may have extensive rugose area on dorsal margin ( Fig. 22 View FIGURES 21–24 ). Abdominal plates as in Fig. 1 View FIGURES 1–2 ; tergopleurites II–VII separated medianly; tergopleurite VIII medianly continuous; tergopleurite IX+X not fused with tergopleurite XI; inter-tergal plates may be present ( Fig. 3 View FIGURES 3–4 ). Sternal plates present on segments II–VII. Subgenital plate incised laterally between segments VIII and IX+X, and plates on these segments may be completely separate ( Fig. 1 View FIGURES 1–2 ). Stylus long, tapering, arising distally from subgenital plate ( Figs 76–78 View FIGURES 76–78 ). Male genitalia as in Figs 33–41 View FIGURES 33–44 . Basal apodeme long, slender, with lateral margins roughly parallel or diverging distally ( Fig. 33 View FIGURES 33–44 ). Mesosome seemingly fused to basal apodeme proximally; antero-laterally with prominent hooks on each side; distal section with extensive rugose area. Gonopore reaches to or slightly beyond distal margin of mesosome [except in C. burmeisteri ( Taschenberg, 1882) ]. Parameres slender, gently curved medianly; parameral seta pst1–2 as in Fig. 34 View FIGURES 33–44 .

Female. Abdominal plates as in Fig. 2 View FIGURES 1–2 ; tergopleurites II–VIII separated medianly, tergopleurite IX+X medianly fused, not fused to tergopleurite XI. Sternal plates present on segments II–VII. Subgenital plate medianly continuous, strongly reticulated, with median incision of anterior margin ( Fig. 69 View FIGURES 69–70 ). Lateral accessory vulval plates present at vulval margin, distal and lateral to subgenital plate (LAVP in Fig. 69 View FIGURES 69–70 ). Subvulval plates present. Vulval margin shallowly concave, with numerous marginal mesosetae, few submarginal mesosetae, and at least one microseta on each side near centre of LAVP. Distal end of abdomen not extended into claspers.

Host distribution. Species of Cataphractomimus are parasitic on members of the genera Tragopan Cuvier, 1829 and Lophophorus Temminck, 1813 , of the family Phasianidae in the order Galliformes . These bird genera form a clade together with Tetraophasis ( Meng et al. 2008; Liu et al. 2014), but no specimens of Cataphractomimus have been examined from species of Tetraophasis, as it is unknown if Cataphractomimus lice occur on species of Tetraophasis.

Geographical range. All species known from the Himalayas and nearby areas in China.

Etymology. The term Cataphractomimus is formed by “ katáphraktos ”, Greek for “fully armoured” and also a name for a Byzantine type of mounted soldiers wearing a scale amour that covered both the soldier and his horse, and “ mîmos ”, Greek for “imitator”. The name refers to the dense and coarse rugosity on most of the sclerotised plates of the species of this genus, which are not dissimilar to ancient scale armour. Gender: masculine.

Remarks. In addition to the specimens described below as new species of Cataphractomimus , we have examined one male and one female from Tragopan caboti (Gould, 1857) from Fokien (= Fujian, China), which were identified by Clay (1938: 170) as Oxylipeurus himalayensis burmeisteri ( Taschenberg, 1882) . Since we have identified the male (NHML: NHMUK010682351) as Cataphractomimus burmeisteri , this species is included in the Chinese fauna but, because this single male has a broken stylus and distorted antennae, it is not illustrated here. However, we identify the female specimen (NHML: NHMUK010682350) as belonging to an unidentified species of Reticulipeurus , i.e. not congeneric with the male.

The species of Cataphractomimus parasitic on species of Tragopan are considerably smaller than those parasitic on species of Lophophorus ( Table 1 View TABLE 1 , see Figs 3–4 View FIGURES 3–4 ). We have not examined any specimen of C. ceratornis , and Eichler (1958) did not include any measurements of this species, but presumably it is also a smaller species. Size differences between the species from the two host genera are substantial, but no other morphological character has been found that correlates with host genus associations.