Callaeas kokakophilus, Mey, 2017

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 : 256-257

Callaenirmus kokakophilus Mey, 2017

Guimaraesiella callaeincola ( Valim & Palma, 2015: 490, figs 4, 5, 6D, 7C,D)

Callaenirmus kokakophilus Mey, 2017: 97 , figs 1, 3, 7–10, pl. II: figs 1–2. New synonymy.

Type host: Callaeas wilsoni (Bonaparte, 1850) — North Island kokako .

Type locality: New Zealand .

Remarks. Our assessment of the characters used by Mey (2017) to separate Callaenirmus kokakophilus Mey, 2017 from Guimaraesiella callaeincola ( Valim & Palma, 2015) indicated that these two species cannot be differentiated and, therefore, we concluded that they are synonyms. Most of the characters given by Mey (2017) to distinguish these two species are variable among species of Guimaraesiella , variable within species, or incorrect. For example, the illustrations of Valim & Palma (2015: figs 4–5) show that Gu. callaeincola has an antennal socket, but Mey (2017: 98) states that Gu. callaeincola , unlike C. kokakophilus , lacks a clear antennal socket (“ausgeprägte Fühlerbucht”). This statement is difficult to explain or understand, as antennal sockets are present in all species of the Brueelia -complex.

Similarly, Mey’s (2017) statement that the dorsal preantennal suture is absent in C. kokakophilus is contradicted by his statement that the shape of the dorsal anterior plate (“dorsalen Clypealsignatur”) can be used to separate this species from Gu. callaeincola . The dorsal anterior plate is formed by the dorsal preantennal suture ( Clay 1951: 180); if there is no suture, there can be no plate. These purported differences are not illustrated; however, the extent of the dorsal preantennal suture and the shape of the dorsal anterior plate vary considerably among specimens of the same species in Guimaraesiella , and therefore are not useful for species delimitation.

Our examination of the macroseta in the male abdominal segment XI of Gu. callaeincola indicated that it is exaggerated in the original illustration ( Valim & Palma 2015: fig. 4A), and that it should be shortened by about one third. Mey’s (2017: 98) text description suggests that C. kokakophilus has 6–8 macrosetae on the male abdominal segment XI, but his illustration ( Mey 2017: fig. 7) shows only four macrosetae and two microsetae. Either the text or the illustration is incorrect, as they are contradictory.Also, the photograph provided by Mey (2017: 185; plate II: fig. 1) is too small to see setae. No differences in chaetotaxy were found in material from four host species (see Valim & Palma 2015: 492) held in the Museum of New Zealand. Provisionally, we consider this character to be identical between the two nominal species.

Other characters purported to separate C. kokakophilus from Gu. callaeincola are similarly based on withinspecies variation rather than among-species variation. There may be differences in head shape and pigmentation patterns, but based on Mey’s illustrations and photographs it is unclear whether these are real or specimen preparation artifacts. We therefore consider C. kokakophilus Mey, 2017 a new junior synonym of Guimaraesiella callaeincola ( Valim & Palma, 2015) .