Gallancyra dentata Gustafsson & Zou 2020, gen. et comb. nov.

Gallancyra dentata (Sugimoto, 1934) gen. et comb. nov.

Lipeurus dentatus Sugimoto, 1934: 2, figs 1–11 + 2 unnumbered photos.

Lipeurus angularis Peters, 1935: 101, figs 1–3.

Oxylipeurus dentatus – Clay, 1938: 181.

Reticulipeurus dentatus (Sugimoto, 1935) [sic] – Mey 2003: 90.

Type host

Gallus gallus (Linnaeus, 1758) – Red Junglefowl (domestic chicken).

Other hosts

Gallus gallus murghi Robinsson & Kloss, 1920; Gallus gallus spadiceus (Bonnaterre, 1790) (Emerson & Elbel 1956: 382); Gallus lafayettii Lesson, 1831 (Price et al. 2003: 203) – Sri Lanka Junglefowl. “[S]everal of the wild chickens of Southeast Asia” (Emerson 1956: 78).

Type locality

Taiwan.

Material examined

Non-type material

Ex Gallus gallus murghi

INDIA • 1 ♂, 2 ♀♀; Sikkim; Jan. 1922; R. Meinertzhagen, 345; NHMUK010682390; NHMUK.

Ex Gallus gallus ssp.

PAPUA NEW GUINEA • 2 ♀♀; Central District, Kapogere Area; Apr. 1971; I.L. Owen leg.; 1192/71; Brit.Mus. 1971-292; NHMUK010682394; NHMUK.

MALAYSIA • 1 ♀; Trengganu; 1968; A. Mustaffa leg.; Brit. Mus. 1968-292; NHMUK010682389 • 2 ♂♂, 3 ♀♀; Trengganu; Jun. 1969; A. Mustaffa leg.; Brit. Mus. 1969-396; NHMUK010682393; NHMUK.

Description

Both sexes

See genus description; below are listed only details of those characters typically variable among species in the Oxylipeurus -complex.

Male

Proximal mesosome extended into rather trapezoidal structure that overlaps with distal section of basal apodeme (Fig. 13); this section is rather diffuse in specimens, and has here been illustrated approximately. Antero-lateral sections of mesosome elongated hook-shaped, more intensely sclerotized than trapezoidal section. Distal mesosome gently rounded, with rugose areas limited to lateral margins; rugose section expands medially in anterior end. Sclerotized plate present in central part of distal mesosome, with arched antero-lateral extensions on each side. Gonopore slender, not reaching distal half of mesosome. A single tube situated on each side of gonopore, which may terminate in sensilla, but no such sensillae visible in examined specimens. Two pmes microsetae visible on each side lateral to gonopore. Parameres slender, without distinct head; pst1–2 as in Fig. 12, both subterminal microsetae. Measurements (n = 3, except TL and PTW where n = 2); TL = 2.22–2.32; HL = 0.63–064; HW = 0.44–0.46; PRW = 0.32–0.35; PTW = 0.44–0.46; AW = 0.53–0.62.

Female

Vulval margin with 20–32 vms on each side, and 11–15 vss gathered in the central section. In both sets of setae, lateral setae are longer than medial setae. Measurements (n = 8); TL = 2.54–2.84; HL = 0.70–0.74; HW = 0.51–0.55; PRW = 0.36–0.42; PTW = 0.52–0.59; AW = 0.69–0.75.

Remarks

Peters (1935), Clay (1938), Emerson (1956) and Price et al. (2003) all list “ Lipeurus denticlypeus Sugimoto, 1934 ” as a synonym or potential synonym of O. dentatus. Clay (1938: 181) noted that the change in name is only in the reprint, not in the published version of the manuscript. As such, it has never been published, and is at best considered a manuscript name, with no nomenclatorial existence.

Moreover, the translation of this manuscript is usually given as “On a new species of Mallophaga, Lipeurus denticlypeatus n. sp., from the Formosan fowl” (e.g., Price et al. 2003). The original Japanese title does not include either the name of the louse, the name of the host, or the origin of the specimens. It roughly translates to “Additional information on the head lice of domestic birds”. No information on the location on Sugimoto’s type specimens appears to be included in the original description, and the location of the holotype is unknown. As we have no evidence that it has been destroyed or lost, we here do not select a neotype for L. dentatus.

A single examined male of G. dentata gen. et comb. nov. from Gallus gallus murghi has a larger head with a blunter preantennal area than males from G. g. gallus, but heads of females from the two host subspecies are near identical. Other characters are largely indistinguishable between specimens from the two host subspecies, but the male genitalia of the single male from G. g. murghi are destroyed and partially obscured by gut content, and cannot be compared adequately. As so few specimens have been examined from either host subspecies, and the natural variation is thus not known, we presently do not consider these differences to be significant, until a large series of specimens have been examined. We therefore consider specimens from both host subspecies to be conspecific.