Philopterus hebes Gustafsson & Najer & Zou & Bush 2022, sp. nov.
Creators: name: Gustafsson, Daniel R.
name: Najer, Tomas
name: Zou, Fasheng
name: Bush, Sarah E.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2022
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Psocodea
Philopteridae
Philopterus
Philopterus hebes

description: Philopterus hebes sp. nov.
urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: DACE58E4-5AB4-420A-A709-777B88A4824B
Figs 1–6; Tables 1–4
Diagnosis
It is difficult to ascertain which species of Philopterus is most similar to P. hebes sp. nov. The broad and relatively short preantennal head of P. hebes sp. nov. is reminiscent of that of P. chilchil Ansari, 1955 [ex Turdoides caudata caudata (Dumont, 1823); see Ansari (1958) for an illustration; type specimens of P. chilchil are presumed lost (Naz et al. 2020)]. Both P. hebes sp. nov. and P. chilchil have very broad dorsal anterior plates with broad posterior extensions. However, the illustrations of P. chilchil published by Ansari (1958) are inadequate to compare the two species properly; for instance, the subgenital plate and many head setae are absent in Ansari’s illustration and not described in detail in the text. The male genitalia of P. chilchil are poorly illustrated and not described. From what can be seen in Ansari’s illustrations, P. hebes sp. nov. can be separated from P. chilchil by the following characters: distal mesosome broadly triangular with pointed distal end in P. chilchil, but rounded with concave lateral margins in P. hebes sp. nov. (Figs 4–5); proximal mesosome extensive, with concave lateral margins and convex proximal margin in P. chilchil, but simple, with convergent convex lateral margins in P. hebes sp. nov. (Fig. 5); hyaline margin apparently very narrow and weakly concave in P. chilchil, but extensive, with moderate concavity in median section in P. hebes sp. nov. (Figs 1–3). Closer comparison of the genitalia of both sexes and chaetotaxy will have to await the redescription of P. chilchil.
A similar head shape is also found in Philopterus vittati Ansari, 1955 [ex Lanius vittatus Valenciennes, 1826; see Ansari (1956) for illustration; holotype presumed lost (Naz et al. 2020)]. These two species can be separated by the following characters: posterior extension of dorsal anterior plate narrow in P. vittati, but broad in P. hebes sp. nov. (Fig. 3); hyaline margin less extensive in P. vittati than in P. hebes sp. nov. (Fig. 3); female abdominal segments IV–V with 3 sts on each side in P. hebes sp. nov. (Fig. 2), but with 4 sts on each side in P. vittati (n= 3 and 5, respectively); female abdominal segment VI with 2 sts on each side in P. hebes sp. nov. (Fig. 2), but with 4 sts on each side in P. vittati; lateral accessory sternites present on abdominal segments II–VI and central sternal plate present on segment VI in P. vittati, but central sternal plates absent and lateral accessory sternal plates not visible (but may be poorly sclerotized) in P. hebes sp. nov. (Fig. 2). The male of P. vittati is unknown, and the species is in need of redescription before a more complete comparison can be made.
Etymology
The species name is derived from the Latin ‘ hebes ’ for ‘blunt’, referring to the shape of the preantennal area.
Material examined
Holotype THAILAND • ♂; Chaiyaphum Province, Phukhieo, Ban Nan Khun; 11 Dec. 1952; R.E. Elbel leg.; ex Chloropsis aurifrons inornata; “ RE-876–888, RT-B-17528 ”; NHMUK.
Paratypes THAILAND • 1 ♀; same collection data as for holotype; NHMUK • 3 ♂♂, 3 ♀♀; Kamphaeng-Phet Province, Khanu, Salok Bat Ban Thung Chuak; 24 Jun. 1953; same collector and host as for holotype; “ RE-2741, RT-B-21644 ”; PIPR.
Other material
THAILAND • 1 ♀; Loei Province, Tha Li Ban Muang Khai; 17 Jan. 1955; same collector as for holotype; ex Chloropsis cochinchinensis kinneari; “ RE-4504, B-31119 ”; PIPR.
Type host
Chloropsis aurifrons inornata Kloss, 1918 – golden-fronted leafbird (Chloropseidae).
Other host
Chloropsis cochinchinensis kinneari Hall & Deignan, 1956 – blue-winged leafbird.
Description
Head shape and chaetotaxy as in Fig. 3, preantennal area very broad. Hyaline margin wide, not extending much lateral to marginal carina, concave medianly. Dorsal anterior plate roughly pentagonal, anterior margin shallowly concave, lateral corners rounded. Ventral anterior plate wide, shallowly crescentshaped. Posterior margin of dorsal preantennal suture unclear in examined specimens. Coni slender, curved posteriorly. Gular plate small. Thoracic and abdominal segments as in Figs 1–2. Measurements as in Table 1.
Male
Thoracic and abdominal chaetotaxy as in Fig. 1 and Tables 2–4. Central sternal plates absent, lateral accessory plates present on segments II–VI. Basal apodeme slender, widening slightly anteriorly (Figs 4–5). Mesosome as in Figs 4–5, with 3 stout setae on each side. Parameres short, blunt (Figs 4–5), with pst1–2 both apical.
Female
Thoracic and abdominal chaetotaxy as in Fig. 2 and Tables 2–4. Central sternal plates absent, lateral accessory plates not clearly visible. Subgenital plate and vulval margin as in Fig. 6; chaetotaxy as in Fig. 6 and Table 3. Subvulval plates with notch on lateral margin.
Remarks
Apart from size, no significant differences were found between specimens from the two host species. Philopterus hebes sp. nov. constitutes the first description of a species in the Philopterus complex, as well as the first ischnoceran louse, from hosts in the Chloropseidae.
description: Published as part of Gustafsson, Daniel R., Najer, Tomas, Zou, Fasheng & Bush, Sarah E., 2022, New species of Philopterus Nitzsch, 1818 (Ischnocera: Philopteridae), with notes on Cypseloecus Conci, 1941, pp. 1-52 in European Journal of Taxonomy 790 (1) on pages 5-6, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2022.790.1641, http://zenodo.org/record/5999772