Brueelia kalkalichi (Ansari, 1955)

Naz, Saima, Najer, Tomas & Gustafsson, Daniel R., 2020, An annotated list of the species of lice (Insecta: Phthiraptera) described by Mohammad A. - R. Ansari, Zootaxa 4809 (3), pp. 401-448 : 422

Brueelia kalkalichi (Ansari, 1955)

Philopterus kalkalichi Ansari, 1955e: 58 .

Philopterus kalkalichi Ansari, 1956a: 396 . Junior primary homonym.

Philopterus kalkalichi Ansari, 1958b: 60 , figs 66–75. Junior primary homonym.

Brueelia sp.; Palma & Price 2006: 7.

Brueelia kalkalichi ( Ansari, 1955e) ; Mey & Barker 2014: 93.

Type host: Dicrurus macrocercus peninsularis Vieillot.

Type locality: Faisalabad [as Lyallpur, Punjab], Pakistan .

Type material: The location of these specimens is given as the Zoological Survey Department, Karachi but, as they could not be found, they are presumed lost.

Remarks. The name “ Philopterus kalkalichi ” has a complicated history. Ansari (1955e) first described a species with this name but did not illustrate it, giving a few details about its morphology. As pointed out by Mey & Barker (2014), those details make it clear that this species is not a Philopterus , but most likely a member of the Brueelia - complex. This is indicated by the presence of rectangular, central sternal plates, which are typical of lice in the Brueelia -complex, but not found in species of Philopterus found on drongos ( Sychra et al. 2011).

Ansari’s (1955e) statement that the tergal plates are “entire” does not fit with either of these two louse groups, as they are divided medianly in both Philopterus and the Brueelia -complex. However, whereas the tergal plates of Philopterus species are widely separated medianly by a wide hyaline area, those of most species in the Brueelia - complex are separated only by a very narrow suture, which may be invisible in poorly prepared specimens. Further, Ansari (1955e) states that the tergal plates are “feebly sclerotised”, which is often the case in species of the Brueelia -complex, whereas species of Philopterus usually have thickly sclerotised tergal plates, even in specimens that have been overcleared. Finally, Ansari (1955e) erroneously mentions that the tergites are entire in other species of Brueelia , which further strengthens the case that he simply overlooked the narrow suture in these species.

Our placement of Philopterus kalkalichi Ansari, 1955e in Brueelia is further strengthened by the illustrations in Ansari (1958b: figs 66–75), which show a typical species of Brueelia sensu stricto, with rectangular sternal plates and medianly continuous tergal plates. This is in contrast with Ansari (1956e, figs 30–32) illustrations which show a typical species of Philopterus without sternal plates and widely separated tergal plates. Moreover, the measurements given by Ansari (1955e; 1958b) are not the same as those given by Ansari (1956e).

Therefore, it is evident that the several descriptions of “ Philopterus kalkalichi ” refer to two different species belonging to two different genera. As the first description is undoubtedly a Brueelia , the correct name for this species is Brueelia kalkalichi ( Ansari, 1955e) . However, as the other species described as “ Philopterus kalkalichi ” by Ansari (1956e) is a junior primary homonym, it is permanently invalid (ICZN 1999, Code Article 57.2). Hence, the species of Philopterus described and illustrated by Ansari (1956e) is nameless, as previously pointed out by Mey & Barker (2014) and Gustafsson & Bush (2017). See below under Philopterus ansarii nomen novum.