Brueelia (Painjunirmus) pengya ( Ansari, 1947 )

Gustafsson, Daniel R. & Bush, Sarah E., 2024, Resurrection of Painjunirmus Ansari, 1947 (Phthiraptera: Ischnocera) as a subgenus of Brueelia Kéler, 1936, with description of one new species, European Journal of Taxonomy 968, pp. 174-199 : 184-187

Brueelia (Painjunirmus) pengya ( Ansari, 1947)

Figs 17–24

Painjunirmus pengya Ansari, 1947: 285–287 , fig. 10.

Brueelia pengya – Hopkins & Clay 1952: 60. — Ansari 1956a: 157–158, figs 48–54. — Price et al. 2003: 157.— Gustafsson & Bush 2017: 40.— Mey 2017: 156–158, fig. 80.

Type material

Holotype PAKISTAN • 1 ♀; Faisalabad [as Lyallpur, Punjab, India]; 16 Mar. 1932; ex Argya striata sindiana ( Ticehurst, 1920) [as Turdoides terricolor terricolor ]; Brit. Mus. 1953-2; NHMUK010670844 ; NHMUK .

Allotype PAKISTAN • ♂; same data as for holotype; Brit. Mus. 1953-2; NHMUK010670844 ; NHMUK.

Paratypes PAKISTAN • 2 ♂♂, 1 ♀; same data as for holotype; Brit. Mus. 1953-2; NHMUK010670844 ; NHMUK .

Other material examined

INDIA • 2 ♀♀; Lucknow [Uttar Pradesh]; ex A. striata somervillei ( Sykes, 1832) [as Turdoides somervillei ]; Brit. Mus. 1951-444; NHMUK010709548 ; NHMUK.

LOCALITY UNKNOWN • 1 ♂, 1 ♀; ex A. striata somervillei [as Turdoides somervillei ]; NHMUK010709060–1 ; NHMUK .

Type host

Argya striata sindiana ( Ticehurst, 1920) – jungle babbler.

Type locality

Faisalabad, Pakistan.

Other hosts

Argya striata somervillei ( Sykes, 1832) . Argya striata ( Dumont, 1823) .

Description

Both sexes

Head convex dome-shaped ( Fig. 19 ), lateral margins of preantennal area convex, frons shallowly concave. Marginal carina moderately displaced and much widened at osculum; lateral sections slender, with slightly irregular median margins. Ventral anterior plate not visible. Head chaetotaxy as in Fig. 19 ; dorsal post-antennal setae and sensilla not visible, but presumably same as in other species of Painjunirmus . Extent of head pigmentation as in Fig. 19 , limited to lateral margins of head. Thoracic and abdominal segments as in Figs 17–18 ; proepimera, metepisterna, lateral margins of tergopleurites, and sternal plates with medium brown pigmentation; pigmentation of sternal plates paler medianly than laterally.

Male

Scape as in Fig. 19 . Thoracic and abdominal chaetotaxy as in Fig. 17 ; aps absent from tergopleurite III; tps present on tergopleurites V–VIII; 2 ps on each side of segments III–V and VII, 3 ps one ach side of segment VI. Sternal plates without lateral extensions. Subgenital plate with dark pigmentation only on anterior margin, darker laterally than medianly. Basal apodeme broad, short, constricted at mid-length ( Fig. 21 ). Proximal mesosome elongated, pointed ( Fig. 22 ). Mesosomal lobes with near-parallel lateral margins distally, antero-lateral horns slender, more or less straight. Rugose area of mesosomal lobes limited to distal margin; pmes as in Fig. 22 . Gonopore broad, crescent-shaped, distal margin deeply concave; ames as in Fig. 22 ; penile arms short, not reaching distal margin of mesosomal lobes. Parameres slender, much elongated; pst1–2 as in Fig. 23.

MEASUREMENTS (n = 1). TL = 1.39; HL = 0.38; HW = 0.32; PRW = 0.21; PTW = 0.34; AW = 0.49.

Female

Scape as in Fig. 20 . Thoracic and abdominal chaetotaxy as in Fig. 18 ; segments III–VIII with 3 ps on each side. Sternal plates without lateral extensions. Subgenital plate broad, with broad connection to cross-piece ( Fig. 24 ). Vulval margin gently rounded ( Fig. 24 ), with 4 short, slender vms and 4–5 short, thorn-like vss on each side; 4–5 short, slender vos one each side of subgenital plate; distal 1 vos median to vss.

MEASUREMENTS (n = 3). TL = 1.73–1.79; HL = 0.39–0.44; HW = 0.35–0.37; PRW = 0.21–0.23; PTW = 0.35–0.38; AW = 0.49–0.58.

Remarks

Mey (2017) discussed the complicated publication history of Painjunirmus pengya , inherited from Ansari’s habit of redescribing the same species as new, often several times, in separate publications, and sometimes referring to clearly different species belonging to different genera (see Naz et al. 2020 for an example). As a large number of Ansari’s types are missing ( Naz et al. 2020), and his published illustrations are often partial or include setae transposed from ventral to dorsal sides, identification of species described by Ansari necessarily include a degree of imagination.

Mey (2017) argued both that the host associations of P. pengya are doubtful, and that this species may be a synonym of either Brueelia mahrastan Ansari, 1956 , or Brueelia chilchil Ansari, 1955 . As Brueelia mahrastan is today placed in the genus Priceiella Gustafsson & Bush, 2017 , and P. pengya sensu Ansari, 1947 , is clearly not a member of this genus, they cannot be synonyms. As the holotype is also different from the potential type specimens of B. chilchil we have examined, including the neotype (see above), we also reject the suggestion that P. pengya is a synonym of B. chilchil .

We agree with Mey (2017) that there are definitely differences in the illustrations of P. pengya between Ansari (1947) and Ansari (1956a); for instance, the abdominal chaetotaxy of the male does not include any tps or ss in the illustrations of Ansari 1947, but include them in the illustrations of Ansari 1956a; notably, in both illustrations the sts appear to have been transposed to the dorsal side. Neither of these illustrations have the same chaetotaxy as that illustrated here, which corresponds to the chaetotaxy of the allotype (but is based on the non-type male; Fig. 17 ). There are also differences in the shape of the male genitalia, but not necessarily in the structure, although detail is too scant to be sure. As these drawings are made by different people (see signatures on plates), and possibly based on different specimens, the differences are here not considered significant; however, we hope that the illustrations and description of this species provided here will be able to replace these older illustrations.

Concerning the doubtful host association, Mey (2017) based this primarily on the idea that “it is hard to believe that these two host species [ Turdoides striata and Turdoides caudata , the originally given host species of P. pengya ] are parasitized by the same louse species in nature” ( Mey 2017: 156; our translation). This is common throughout the Brueelia -complex ( Gustafsson & Bush 2017), but does not appear to be the case here: specimens from other T. striata are conspecific with the types of P. pengya , whereas specimens from T. caudata represent a different species ( B. chilchil ). Different louse species thus parasitize on different host species in this case, but there seem to be no reason to doubt that Ansari’s host associations are erroneous. The neotype designation of B. chilchil above should put this matter to rest.

Note that specimens we have seen from T. striata from Nepal do not represent P. pengya and are here described as a new species.

Figures

Figs 17–18. Brueelia (Painjunirmus) pengya (Ansari, 1947). 17. ♂, habitus, dorsal and ventral views. 18. ♀, habitus, dorsal and ventral views.

Figs 19–24. Brueelia (Painjunirmus) pengya (Ansari, 1947). 19. ♂, head, dorsal and ventral views. 20. ♀, antenna, ventral side. 21. ♂, genitalia, dorsal view. 22. ♂, mesosome, ventral view. 23. ♂, paramere, dorsal view. 24. ♀, subgenital plate and vulval margin, ventral view.