Guimaraesiella Eichler, 1949

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 : 253-254

Availability of Guimaraesiella Eichler, 1949

Mey (2017: 90) argues that the name Guimaraesiella Eichler, 1949 is not taxonomically available, suggesting that Eichler, when he described Guimaraesiella , had in mind a genus of the Philopterus -complex rather than a member of the Brueelia -complex. Mey (2017) supports his interpretation by observing that Eichler (1941) had previously separated Brueelia and Philopterus into two different families, Degeeriellidae and Philopteridae , and that Eichler (1949) placed Guimaraesiella in Philopteridae . Presumably, this placement reflects the fact that Eichler never saw Piaget’s specimens of Docophorus subalbicans Piaget, 1885 , the type species of his new genus Guimaraesiella . Instead, Eichler (1949) seems to have relied on the description and illustration of Piaget (1885: 6, pl. I: fig. 8), as well as Piaget’s placement of his species in Docophorus Nitzsch, 1818 , rather than in Nirmus Nitzsch, 1818 .

However, regardless of Eichler’s intentions, generic names must follow the identity of the type species which, for Guimaraesiella , is Docophorus subalbicans Piaget, 1885 , which is a junior synonym of Docophorus papuanus Giebel, 1874 as listed by Harrison (1916) and Hopkins & Clay (1952). Piaget (1885: 8) also suggested that these two species were probably synonymous. Unfortunately, D. papuanus was poorly described, not illustrated, and its type material lost ( Clay & Hopkins 1955). Consequently, both Mey & Barker (2014: 82) and Gustafsson & Bush (2017: 224), accepted this long-standing synonymy as valid, to promote stability in the nomenclature of this difficult group.

Examination of type specimens of D. subalbicans is also problematic. The Natural History Museum, London (NHML) obtained large parts of the Piaget Collection in 1928 ( Thompson 1937), which includes two slides containing three males possibly derived from the type series of D. subalbicans , as well as syntype material from both of the varieties (“var. α” and “var. β”) described by Piaget (1885: 7) ( Thompson 1938). However, none of these slides are marked as types, although we did not examine all 15 males that Piaget (1885) referred to in his description of D. subalbicans . Since we do not know whether one of the unexamined specimens is marked as the holotype, we cannot select a lectotype. If the missing slides cannot be found, a lectotype should be selected from the three male specimens mounted on two slides labelled as “B.M. 1928-325”, also numbered “622”, held in the NHML collection.

In summary, Mey (2017) argues that the name Guimaraesiella is not available because the short description by Eichler (1949) does not clearly separate it from either Brueelia Kéler, 1936 or Philopterus Nitzsch, 1818 , nor from any other genus of Philopteridae . However, Article 13.1.1 of the Code (1999) states that, to be available, a genus needs to be accompanied by word characters “that are purported to differentiate the taxon”. Although Eichler’s (1949) description is suboptimal, the designation of a type species and the inclusion of several morphological characters purporting to separate Guimaraesiella from Docophorus are technically sufficient to establish the availability of Guimaraesiella . Comprehensive redescriptions of this genus and its type species are provided by Gustafsson & Bush (2017: 224–226, 229–232).