Austrophilopterus dimorphus Carriker 1950

Price, Roger D. & Weckstein, Jason D., 2005, The genus Austrophilopterus Ewing (Phthiraptera: Philopteridae) from toucans, toucanets, and araçaris (Piciformes: Ramphastidae), Zootaxa 918, pp. 1-18 : 14

6. Austrophilopterus dimorphus Carriker 1950 ( Fig. 14 )

Austrophilopterus dimorphus Carriker 1950: 180 . Type host: Selenidera spectabilis Cassin. Material. PANAMA: Holotype male, 1 male paratype, Mt. Piri (JHP; 1912).

Remarks. The description of this species was based on a single slide with specimens collected in 1912 by someone other than Carriker. Carriker stated that this slide included the holotype male, allotype female, 1 male paratype, and 1 nymph of this species. The obvious difference between the very small compressed male (see Fig. 14 ) and the much larger female must have contributed to the species name " dimorphus ". Unfortunately, the female is clearly a contaminant from either Ramphastos or Pteroglossus . The “nymph” is a headless body of some male in poor condition but belonging to the chewing louse suborder Amblycera and again a likely contaminant.

Male. Principal head features and body outline as in Fig. 14 . Tergal setae: II, 2; III, 4; IV, 6; V, 6–8; VI, 4; VII, 8; VIII, 6. Sternal setae: II–III, 6; IV, 7; V–VI, 8; VII, 6; VIII, 2. Genitalia distally too distorted for detailed observation, with GL, 0.30. Dimensions: TW, 0.47–0.51; HL, 0.54–0.59; PW, 0.30–0.34; MW, 0.37–0.40; AWV, 0.49; TL, 1.31–1.38.

Female. Unavailable.

Diagnosis. We choose to continue recognition of this as a valid species because the male genitalia are too distorted for study and the details of the abdominal chaetotaxy and structure defy confident interpretation. The quantitative data presented here were difficult to obtain, but they all appear to be in the ranges for A. truncatus . On this same slide is an isolated head, with no sign of the associated body, this head being similar, but somewhat larger, to those of the males. Carriker must have exercised his imagination to the utmost to come up with his Fig. 35 for the male genitalia. Carriker even admitted that the specimens were in poor condition, hairs missing, poorly cleared, with many details not visible. Yet he described this new species from them! Given the history of the specimens on this slide, with obvious contamination from most likely 2 other host taxa, the type host itself may actually be in error. Only additional collecting from S. spectabilis will help answer this question.

Figures

FIGURES 9 – 16. 9 – 13, Austrophilopterus truncatus. 9, Male metanotum and dorsoventral abdomen. 10, Male dorsal head. 11, Male genitalia. 12, Terminal portion of male genitalia. 13, Female metanotum and dorsoventral abdomen. 14, A. dimorphus dorsal holotype male. 15 – 16, A. thysi. 15, Male dorsoventral posterior abdomen. 16, Male dorsal head.