identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
03AB87B6DF62EE0329F72755FE12F818.text	03AB87B6DF62EE0329F72755FE12F818.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Phthiraptera Haeckel 1896	<div><p>PHTHIRAPTERA Haeckel, 1896</p> <p>Phthiraptera Haeckel 1896: 703.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03AB87B6DF62EE0329F72755FE12F818	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Gustafsson, Daniel R.;Adam, Costică;Zou, Fasheng	Gustafsson, Daniel R., Adam, Costică, Zou, Fasheng (2022): One new genus and three new species of the Penenirmus-complex (Phthiraptera Ischnocera) from China, with resurrection of Picophilopterus Ansari, 1947. Zootaxa 5087 (3): 401-426, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5087.3.1
03AB87B6DF61EE0029F72094FE38FF58.text	03AB87B6DF61EE0029F72094FE38FF58.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Ischnocera Kellogg 1896	<div><p>Ischnocera Kellogg, 1896</p> <p>Ischnocera Kellogg, 1896: 63.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03AB87B6DF61EE0029F72094FE38FF58	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Gustafsson, Daniel R.;Adam, Costică;Zou, Fasheng	Gustafsson, Daniel R., Adam, Costică, Zou, Fasheng (2022): One new genus and three new species of the Penenirmus-complex (Phthiraptera Ischnocera) from China, with resurrection of Picophilopterus Ansari, 1947. Zootaxa 5087 (3): 401-426, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5087.3.1
03AB87B6DF61EE0029F721F7FC97FA8D.text	03AB87B6DF61EE0029F721F7FC97FA8D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Penenirmus Clay & Meinertzhagen 1938	<div><p>Penenirmus -complex</p> <p>Included genera</p> <p>Penenirmus Clay &amp; Meinertzhagen, 1938</p> <p>Penenirmus Clay &amp; Meinertzhagen, 1938a: 73.</p> <p>Alaudinirmus Złotorzycka, 1964: 273.</p> <p>Panurinirmus Złotorzycka, 1964: 270.</p> <p>Paranirmus Złotorzycka, 1964: 275.</p> <p>Pleurinirmus Złotorzycka, 1964: 275.</p> <p>Picophilopterus Ansari, 1947</p> <p>Picophilopterus Ansari, 1947: 265.</p> <p>Laimoloima new genus</p> <p>Turnicola Clay &amp; Meinertzhagen, 1938</p> <p>Turnicola Clay &amp; Meinertzhagen, 1938b: 278. [1]</p> <p>[1] Included based on the phylogeny in Johnson et al. (2021: fig. 1).</p> <p>Remarks. No clear definition of the Penenirmus -complex has been published, but Mey (1992) suggested that the absence of the head seta pos is a good synapomorphy for Penenirmus + Picophilopterus. This seta appears to be present in Penenirmus rafflesi Dalgleish, 1967 [now in Laimoloima] and pos is also absent in the distantly related Acronirmus Eichler, 1953b (Gustafsson &amp; Bush 2017). Therefore, it is not a good character to group Penenirmus with Picophilopterus. The structure of the male genitalia is perhaps a better character to define this complex, but a thorough redescription of Turnicola is needed before useful morphological characters which would link Turnicola, Penenirmus, Picophilopterus and Laimoloima can be identified.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03AB87B6DF61EE0029F721F7FC97FA8D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Gustafsson, Daniel R.;Adam, Costică;Zou, Fasheng	Gustafsson, Daniel R., Adam, Costică, Zou, Fasheng (2022): One new genus and three new species of the Penenirmus-complex (Phthiraptera Ischnocera) from China, with resurrection of Picophilopterus Ansari, 1947. Zootaxa 5087 (3): 401-426, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5087.3.1
03AB87B6DF61EE0029F72146FDFCFE09.text	03AB87B6DF61EE0029F72146FDFCFE09.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Philopteridae Burmeister 1838	<div><p>Philopteridae Burmeister, 1838</p> <p>Philopteridae Burmeister, 1838: 422.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03AB87B6DF61EE0029F72146FDFCFE09	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Gustafsson, Daniel R.;Adam, Costică;Zou, Fasheng	Gustafsson, Daniel R., Adam, Costică, Zou, Fasheng (2022): One new genus and three new species of the Penenirmus-complex (Phthiraptera Ischnocera) from China, with resurrection of Picophilopterus Ansari, 1947. Zootaxa 5087 (3): 401-426, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5087.3.1
03AB87B6DF61EE0629F7257BFDE2FDCA.text	03AB87B6DF61EE0629F7257BFDE2FDCA.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Picophilopterus Ansari 1947	<div><p>Picophilopterus Ansari, 1947</p> <p>Type species: Picophilopterus tuktola Ansari, 1947: 265 [= Pediculus pici Fabricius, 1798: 571] (by original designation).</p> <p>Diagnosis. There are no good published illustrations to distinguish Picophilopterus from Penenirmus morphologically, especially regarding male genitalia, features of the head and its chaetotaxy. However, based on specimens available to us, the comparison between the two genera published by Mey (1992) and the redescription of the type species of Penenirmus by Sychra et al. (2014), these genera can be separated by the following characters: (1) Penenirmus lacks the ventral horns (VH in Figs 6, 8) in the male endomere, which are present in Picophilopterus (“sharp pointed lateral projection” of Carriker 1963: 33; “endomeralen Skleritpaar” of Mey 1992: 50); (2) Picophilopterus lacks the dorsal postantennal suture, but is present in Penenirmus (Figs 3–4); (3) the antero-median indentations of the tergopleurites present in at least some Penenirmus are lacking in Picophilopterus (Figs 1–2); (4) at least the type of Penenirmus has multiple sts on each of segments II–VI, but species of Picophilopterus generally only have one sts on each side, except for Picophilopterus campephili (Eichler, 1953a) that has two sts on each side (see Dalgleish 1972: figs 7–8).</p> <p>Carriker (1963) suggested that the structure of the preantennal head and the number and lengths of the abdominal setae would separate these genera; however, even between species where the head shape differs significantly, the structure and chaetotaxy appear to be largely the same, and the numbers of dorsal abdominal setae appear to overlap among species of the two genera. The ventral “elongated lateral sclerites bearing three minute, spine-like setae” mentioned as a generic character for Picophilopterus by Carriker (1963: 33) differ only in shape between Picophilopterus and Penenirmus [compare our illustrations with those of Sychra et al. (2014)], and the shape of the “three minute, spine-like setae” is different even among species of Picophilopterus.</p> <p>Mey (1992) suggested that the shape of the ventral carina separates these genera, but this is not the case for Picophilopterus blythipici n. sp. or for the specimens of Picophilopterus pici sensu lato we have examined. Differences in the size and shape of the coni suggested by Mey (1992) may be more useful, but we have not seen enough species of either genus to evaluate this feature adequately. Mey (1992) also suggested that the relative length of the os compared to mts1 and mts3 separates Picophilopterus from Penenirmus, but this is not true for all Picophilopterus [including P. serrilimbus (Burmeister, 1838) illustrated by Mey (1992)].</p> <p>Description. Both sexes. Head rounded trapezoidal (Fig. 3), preantennal area differing in shape between species. Hyaline margin without marginal sclerotisation, and limited laterally to frons. Marginal carina interrupted medianly and laterally. Dorsal preantennal suture completely surrounds dorsal anterior plate and reaches lateral margin of head near site of as1; suture may extend posteriorly along midline posterior to dorsal anterior plate. Ventral anterior plate present. Ventral carina divided medianly, extended anteriorly to approach or reach frons. Head chaetotaxy as in Fig. 3; pas and pos absent; avs3 not displaced anteriorly, situated near bend of ventral carina; mts2 macroseta or microseta; s5–7 absent. Dorsal postantennal suture absent. Gular plate present, often with central decoration. Thoracic and abdominal segments as in Figs 1–2. Claws of all feet of dissimilar size (Figs 1a–c), and tarsus I of all feet with small, flattened hyaline seta on median margin (hs in Figs 1a–c). Tergopleurites II–VII and IX+X in male and II–IX+X in female medianly continuous. Sternites present but lightly sclerotised.</p> <p>Male. Subgenital plate formed from sternal plates VII–VIII, may reach distal margin of abdomen (Fig. 1). Genital opening clearly dorsal, posterior end of abdomen strongly sclerotised. Basal apodeme long, tongue-like (Fig. 5). Parameres fused to basal apodeme; pst1 sensilla, pst2 microsetae, in some species very stout. Endomere elongated, with postero-lateral extensions on which three slender setae are situated on each side. Ventrally, endomere has paired horn-like projections (Fig. 6). Distal endomere elongated. Lateral to endomere are paired elongated plates of unknown derivation, each with three small setae at about middle of length; anteriorly these plates appear to be fused to basal apodeme, but this is not clear in specimens examined. Distal to endomere, median to the parameres, is a hyaline section of the genitalia which is poorly visible. The lateral extent of this section is not visible, and for clarity only distal margin is illustrated; no setae are visible on this margin in specimens examined.</p> <p>Female. Subgenital plate formed from sternal plate VII only (Fig. 2), bulging posteriorly along midline, but not reaching or approaching vulval margin. Subvulval plates present. In species examined by us, lightly sclerotised plates are present near vulval margin (Fig. 9). Vulval chaetotaxy with multiple long, slender setae marginally, microsetae submarginally forming convergent rows near midline, and scattered setae present between vulval margin and subgenital plate.</p> <p>Host distribution. Piciformes: Capitonidae and Picidae.</p> <p>Geographical range. All continents, except for the Australo-Papuan Region and Antarctica, where there are no woodpeckers or Neotropical barbets.</p> <p>Remarks. Dalgleish’s (1972) extensive synonymy of described taxa and expansion of the known host ranges of several species of Picophilopterus (as Penenirmus) are based primarily in similarities in abdominal chaetotaxy. Other characters, such as head shape and limited details of the male genitalia, suggest that many of the species considered junior synonyms by Dalgleish (1972) are in fact distinct species, including P. caurensis Carriker, 1963, P. rivollii Carriker, 1963 and P. tuktola Ansari, 1947. A thorough revision of the genus Picophilopterus is needed to establish whether or not the wide host associations reported by Dalgleish (1972) are accurate. Here, we follow the species-level taxonomy of Dalgleish (1972) and Price et al. (2003).</p> <p>In addition, redescriptions of species from non-picid hosts are needed to establish the limits of Picophilopterus. In the phylogeny of Johnson et al. (2021: fig 1), Penenirmus jungens (Kellogg, 1896b) is separated from a large clade including many specimens identified as Penenirmus auritus (Scopoli, 1763), one of each of P. arcticus (Carriker, 1958), P. marginatus Tendeiro, 1958, P. pici and P. zumpti Tendeiro, 1961, plus several as Penenirmus sp. [we regard most of these taxa as belonging to Picophilopterus]. To reflect these results into the taxonomy of the complex, the species from honeyguides and some African barbets (Lybiidae) may need to be included in Picophilopterus in order for this genus to be monophyletic, but we believe there are still not sufficient available data to do so. Similarly, Penenirmus zumpti, and P. leucomelan Tendeiro, 1961 are morphologically close enough to Picophilopterus to be included in this genus, but we refrain from making these transfers until these species are properly redescribed. Judging from its original description, Penenirmus marginatus appears to be distinct, and not close to either Picophilopterus or the species parasitising African barbets.</p> <p>The correct generic position of Penenirmus jungens is not clear, although we have tentatively placed it in Picophilopterus. The keys of Emerson &amp; Johnson (1961) and Dalgleish (1972) indicate that this species is morphologically close to other species of Picophilopterus; however, these keys are based mainly on abdominal chaetotaxy, which may not be useful to separate genera in the Penenirmus -complex. Furthermore, Emerson &amp; Johnson’s (1961: figs 6, 14, 24) illustrations of P. jungens, i.e. the dorsal anterior plate, the pterothoracic margin and the vulval margin, are characters which may not vary sufficiently among the genera of the Penenirmus -complex to allow placing P. jungens with certainty.</p> <p>More species of the Penenirmus -complex need to be properly redescribed to establish whether the species from African barbets and honeyguides should be included in Picophilopterus, or if these species and P. jungens should be placed in separate new genera.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03AB87B6DF61EE0629F7257BFDE2FDCA	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Gustafsson, Daniel R.;Adam, Costică;Zou, Fasheng	Gustafsson, Daniel R., Adam, Costică, Zou, Fasheng (2022): One new genus and three new species of the Penenirmus-complex (Phthiraptera Ischnocera) from China, with resurrection of Picophilopterus Ansari, 1947. Zootaxa 5087 (3): 401-426, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5087.3.1
03AB87B6DF66EE0729F72094FCBEF83D.text	03AB87B6DF66EE0729F72094FCBEF83D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Picophilopterus blythipici Gustafsson & Adam & Zou 2022	<div><p>Picophilopterus blythipici new species</p> <p>(Figs. 1–3, 5–6, 9)</p> <p>Type host. Blythipicus pyrrhotis sinensis (Rickett, 1897) —bay woodpecker (Picidae).</p> <p>Type locality. Nanling Reservation, Ruyang County, Guangdong Province, China.</p> <p>Diagnosis. Picophilopterus blythipici is morphologically close to P. pici and P. auritus. However, it can be separated from P. pici by the following characters: temples broader and more rounded, preantennal area more elongated and with more concave lateral margins in P. blythipici (Fig. 3) than in P. pici (Fig. 4); ventral horns of male endomere slender and clearly divided medianly into one horn on each side in P. blythipici (Fig. 6), but broader and joined distally to form a plate-like structure in P. pici (Fig. 8); proximal endomere proportionately longer and broader in P. blythipici (Fig. 6) than in P. pici (Fig. 8); male tergopleurites IV–VI each with two tergocentral setae on each side in P. blythipici (Fig. 1), but with three tergocentral setae on each side in P. pici.</p> <p>Picophilopterus blythipici can be separated from P. auritus by the following characters: preantennal area more elongated and slender in P. blythipici (Fig. 3) than in P. auritus; male tergopleurite II medianly continuous in P. auritus, but medianly interrupted in P. blythipici (Fig. 1); male tergopleurite VII with two tergocentral setae on each side in P. blythipici (Fig. 1), but with one tergocentral seta on each side in P. auritus; female tergopleurite IX+X with one seta on each side in P. blythipici (Fig. 2), but with three setae on each side in P. auritus; horn-like projections of male mesosome positioned more anteriorly in P. blythipici than in P. auritus.</p> <p>Description. Both sexes. Head rounded, trapezoidal (Fig. 3), preantennal area slender with shallow concave lateral margins and deeply concave frons. Marginal carina broad. Dorsal anterior plate longer than wide. Dorsal preantennal suture extended posteriorly along midline posterior to dorsal anterior plate. Preantennal nodi large. Head chaetotaxy as in Fig. 3. Gular plate with extensive central rugose area. Thorax, abdomen and chaetotaxy as in Figs 1–2.</p> <p>Male. Tergopleurite IX+X sublaterally with 2–3 long setae clustered close together. Subgenital plate reaches distal margin of abdomen, but with distal end diffuse in some males examined. Genitalia as Figs 5–6; basal apodeme slender, widening considerably towards the distal end (Fig. 5); endomere elongated, with dorsal and ventral horns clearly separated (Fig. 6); chaetotaxy as in Figs 5–6; proximal end of endomere tapering and similar to that in P. pici sensu lato (fig. 8), but differs among specimens; distal end of endomere slender; parameres short and stout; pst1–2 as in Fig. 6.</p> <p>Female. Subgenital plate roughly rectangular, with medio-posterior margin bulging distally (Fig. 9); central part of subgenital plate often with faint reticulation; area posterior to subgenital plate wrinkled. Vulval margin gently rounded, with vulval marginal plates present on each side, seemingly unconnected medianly, but in some specimens there are additional sclerotised areas between these plates (not illustrated). Five sets of setae associated with subgenital plate and vulval area: one macroseta on each side situated on subgenital plate; one macroseta on each side situated just posterior to subgenital plate; 6–7 short, slender setae scattered in area between subgenital plate and vulval marginal plates; 4–6 microsetae in convergent rows median to vulval marginal plates; 17–22 (one specimen with 12 on one side) long, slender setae along vulval margin (some may be submarginal).</p> <p>Type material. Ex Blythipicus pyrrhotis sinensis: Holotype ♂, Nanling Reservation, elev. 1200–1225 m, Ruyang County, Guangdong Province, China, 23 Nov. 2012, Nanling Bird Research Team, bird J0150, GD-PHTH- 00123 (IZGAS). Paratypes: 5♂, 1♀, same data as holotype, GD-PHTH-00124–00136 (IZGAS).</p> <p>Non-types: 2 nymphs, same data as holotype, GD-PHTH-00137–00138 (IZGAS).</p> <p>Etymology. The species epithet is derived from the generic name of the host.</p> <p>Remarks. Dalgleish (1972) included specimens from Blythipicus pyrrhotis pyrrhotis (Hodgson, 1837) from Nepal in Penenirmus pici (Fabricius, 1798) but, using Dalgleish’s (1972) key, our specimens key out to Penenirmus auritus based on abdominal chaetotaxy. Using the key in Emerson &amp; Johnson (1961), our specimens key out to couplet 4, but do not fit either alternative due to differences in female chaetotaxy, and males cannot be accurately identified in this key. As neither Emerson &amp; Johnson (1961) nor Dalgleish (1972) illustrated or described the male genitalia in detail, our comparisons were made with specimens we studied and identified as Picophilopterus pici sensu lato from Picus canus sordidior (see below). Comparisons with P. auritus are based on the redescription of this species by Clay &amp; Hopkins (1960), based on the neotype.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03AB87B6DF66EE0729F72094FCBEF83D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Gustafsson, Daniel R.;Adam, Costică;Zou, Fasheng	Gustafsson, Daniel R., Adam, Costică, Zou, Fasheng (2022): One new genus and three new species of the Penenirmus-complex (Phthiraptera Ischnocera) from China, with resurrection of Picophilopterus Ansari, 1947. Zootaxa 5087 (3): 401-426, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5087.3.1
03AB87B6DF6AEE0B29F72094FAACFB01.text	03AB87B6DF6AEE0B29F72094FAACFB01.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Picophilopterus pici (Fabricius 1798)	<div><p>Picophilopterus pici (Fabricius, 1798) sensu lato</p> <p>(Figs 4, 8–9)</p> <p>Pediculus pici Fabricius, 1798: 571.</p> <p>Docophorus scalaris Burmeister, 1838: 427.</p> <p>Picophilopterus tuktola Ansari, 1947: 265.</p> <p>Picophilopterus sitzendorfensis Mey [in Złotorzycka], 1980: 129.</p> <p>Penenirmus pici (Fabricius, 1798); Price et al. 2003: 210.</p> <p>Type host: Picus viridis Linnaeus, 1758 —green woodpecker (Picidae).</p> <p>Type locality. Estonia —following Clay &amp; Hopkins (1960) designation of a neotype.</p> <p>Other hosts: 25 species and subspecies of woodpeckers (Picidae); see Appendix 1.</p> <p>Host in China: Picus canus sordidior (Rippon, 1906) —gray-headed woodpecker: new host record.</p> <p>Material examined: 1♂, 1♀, 2 nymphs, Wudiancun, elev. 903–1080 m, Ruili County, Yunnan Province, China, 8 Jan. 2013, Y. Wu &amp; Y. Zhang, bird J-0681, GD-PHTH-00119–00122 (IZGAS).</p> <p>Remarks. This species was previously recorded from China by Chu et al. (2019), and this report is based on the same specimens. Picophilopterus pici has been recorded from at least 16 host species (Price et al. 2003), but it is unclear whether all louse populations are conspecific. As we show above, at least the population from Blythipicus pyrrhotis sinensis is not conspecific with P. pici. Considering that Dalgleish (1971) named as Brueelia straminea (Denny, 1842) a large number of dissimilar species, many of which are not closely related to each other (Gustafsson &amp; Bush, in prep.), we suspect that Dalgleish (1972) overestimated the similarities among populations of P. pici from different hosts, and that some of these populations may prove to be different species.</p> <p>The phylogeny of Johnson et al. (2021: fig 1) includes only one specimen of P. pici from Picus canus, nested within a large clade of species mostly named as P. auritus; hence, genetic variation within P. pici from different hosts is unknown. However, several specimens of P. auritus included in the same phylogeny indicate that this nominal species may represent a number of different taxa. A thorough morphological revision of Picophilopterus from all woodpeckers is needed to ascertain the true number of different species currently included under these two species names. As an example, here we provide illustrations of the head and male genitalia of lice from Picus canus sordidior, which may prove to be a different species from P. pici sensu stricto. Note that pst1–2 are not visible in examined specimens, and are not illustrated; the absence of these setae would need to be confirmed in other specimens.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03AB87B6DF6AEE0B29F72094FAACFB01	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Gustafsson, Daniel R.;Adam, Costică;Zou, Fasheng	Gustafsson, Daniel R., Adam, Costică, Zou, Fasheng (2022): One new genus and three new species of the Penenirmus-complex (Phthiraptera Ischnocera) from China, with resurrection of Picophilopterus Ansari, 1947. Zootaxa 5087 (3): 401-426, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5087.3.1
03AB87B6DF6AEE0929F724FFFC83FF7E.text	03AB87B6DF6AEE0929F724FFFC83FF7E.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Laimoloima Gustafsson & Adam & Zou 2022	<div><p>Laimoloima new genus</p> <p>Type species: Laimoloima tandani n. sp.</p> <p>Diagnosis. Laimoloima is morphologically closest to Penenirmus. For comparison, refer to figures 4 and 5 in Sychra et al. (2014) to see the diagnostic characters of Penenirmus against those of Laimoloima as enumerated and illustrated in this paper. These two genera can be separated by the following characters: (1) head hyaline margin with marginal sclerotisation in Laimoloima (Fig. 14), but without sclerotisation in Penenirmus; (2) hyaline margin arising laterally near as2 and thus extending lateral to sclerotised part of frons in Laimoloima (Fig. 14), but restricted to median part of frons in Penenirmus; (3) marginal carina clearly interrupted laterally at point where dorsal preantennal suture reaches head margin in Penenirmus, but not interrupted at that point in Laimoloima (Fig. 14); (4) head seta as3 clearly dorsal, situated on hyaline margin in Laimoloima (Fig. 14), but marginal and situated on sclerotised part of head in Penenirmus; (5) head seta as1 clearly dorsal in Laimoloima (Fig. 14), but marginal in Penenirmus; (6) head seta mts1 short in Laimoloima, and in males clearly situated ventrally [in P. rafflesi (Dalgleish, 1967) this seta appears to be situated near the eye, but we have not seen any specimens to confirm this character], but mts1 is a macroseta in Penenirmus; (7) head seta mts2 is a macroseta in Laimoloima but is short in Penenirmus; (8) tergopleurites II–VIII medianly separated in both sexes in Laimoloima (Figs 10–11), but medianly continuous (may be indented anteriorly) in Penenirmus; (9) ventral side of abdomen of both sexes with only one sts on each side in Laimoloima (Figs 10–11), but with multiple sts on each side in Penenirmus; (10) ventral endomere of male genitalia with posterior and anterior lobes in Laimoloima (Fig. 19), but without lobes in Penenirmus.</p> <p>Description. Both sexes. Head rounded, trapezoidal (Fig. 14), preantennal area broad, relatively short, typically with concave frons. Hyaline margin broad, arising laterally near site of as2, and with clear sclerotisation of margin. Marginal carina interrupted medianly but not laterally. Dorsal preantennal suture completely surrounds dorsal anterior plate; in all specimens examined, the suture extends slightly distally posterior to ads, as illustrated in Fig. 14, but it is not clear if this is an artifact of mounting. Ventral carina interrupted medianly, extended anteriorly but does not reach frons. Head chaetotaxy as in Fig. 14; as1 and as3 clearly dorsal; pas and pos absent (pos may be present in B. rafflesi); avs3 displaced anterior from bend in ventral carina; mts1 clearly ventral at least in males, short seta; mts2–3 macrosetae; s5–7 absent. Dorsal postantennal suture present, with pns situated in suture but s3–4 situated medial to suture. Gular plate present, central part decorated. Thoracic and abdominal segments as in Figs 10–11. Claws of all tarsi of dissimilar size (Figs 10a–c), and segment I of all tarsi with small, flattened hyaline seta on median margin (hs in Figs 10a–c). Leg setae cI-v3, tI-v2, fI-V4, fI-p1, fII-a2, fII-a5, fIII-a2, fIII-a5 absent; fII-d1 and fIII-d1 displaced toward centre of femur; cI-v1, tbI-d1–5, tbI-dm1, tbII-p1–3, tbII-dm3, tbII-v2, tbIII-p1–3 long and spine-like; tbI-v1 very long; tbI-a1 longer than leg seta tbI-a2; long and slender setae here called tbI-v3 (Fig. 10a) present medial to tbI-spn on ventral side; trochanter II–III each with two microsetae near anterior margin (tII-a1–2 and tIII-a1–2, respectively). Tergopleurites II–VIII medianly separated in both sexes. Tergopleurite II extended into postero-lateral hook. Sternal and subgenital plates lightly sclerotised in all specimens examined, and may be absent (not illustrated).</p> <p>Male. Basal apodeme long, tongue-like (Fig. 16), but anterior end diffuse in specimens examined. Parameres fused to basal apodeme, pst1 sensilla, pst2 microsetae, in some species very stout. Endomere elongated, with distinct lobes on both ends: distal lobes pointed, and associated with three setae each side dorsally; proximal lobes on ventral side rounded. Distal endomere elongated. Lateral to endomere are paired elongated plates of unknown derivation, each with three small setae at about mid-length; anteriorly these plates appear to be fused to basal apodeme, but this is not clear in specimens examined. Hyaline section of genitalia distal to endomere poorly visible, but one minute seta visible on the distal margin on each side; lateral extent of this hyaline section is not visible in examined specimens, and only the distal margin is illustrated.</p> <p>Female. Vulval margin with numerous long, slender marginal setae and numerous long, stout submarginal setae; short, slender setae scattered on lightly sclerotised subgenital plate.</p> <p>Host distribution. Piciformes: Megalaimidae.</p> <p>Geographical range. Indo-Malayan region.</p> <p>Etymology. The name Laimoloima is constructed from “ laimós ”, Greek for “throat”, referring to the family name of the host (Megalaimidae), and “ loimós ”, Greek for “pest”. Gender: feminine.</p> <p>Remarks. We include in Laimoloima two new species, described below, and three previously described species. We have not seen any specimens of Docophorus limbatus Piaget, 1885 (as Penenirmus limbatus in Hopkins &amp; Clay 1952: 275) from Psilopogon corvinus (Temminck, 1831), and the original illustration is poor. Piaget (1885: 4) states that the frons has a “coloured border”, which we interpret as referring to the thin band of sclerotisation of the hyaline margin. Therefore, we tentatively include Docophorus limbatus Piaget, 1885 in Laimoloima. Furthermore, Penenirmus rafflesi Dalgleish, 1967 and Penenirmus zeylanica Dalgleish, 1967 are also included in Laimoloima, based on the original descriptions which, as far as it is possible to see, share all the characters of the new genus.</p> <p>In Tendeiro’s (1961) illustrations of Penenirmus guineensis, the frons appears to be sclerotised, the dorsal preantennal suture is present, and as3 is illustrated on the dorsal side. Both, Tendeiro’s (1961) photo of P. bidentatus with a sclerotised hyaline margin and his photo of the male genitalia of P. guineensis suggest a relationship with Laimoloima. However, in the phylogeny of Johnson et al. (2021: fig 1), P. guineensis is embedded in a clade with lice from other African barbets and a woodpecker, sister to a clade of Penenirmus from Passeriformes, and both clades together are sisters to all other Penenirmus sensu lato and Picophilopterus. Nevertheless, as we have not examined any specimens of any African species, we retain P. guineensis and P. bidentatus in Penenirmus until they can be redescribed.</p> <p>In the phylogeny of Johnson et al. (2021), one louse belonging to the Penenirmus -complex from Psilopogon chrysopogon (Temminck, 1824) (Megalaimidae) was placed as sister to a large clade containing several species of Picophilopterus, as well as lice from honeyguides (Indicatoridae), Neotropical barbets (Capitonidae) and two African barbets (Lybiidae). Presumably, the specimen from Psilopogon chrysopogon belongs to Laimoloima, but its morphology is not known to confirm its taxonomic position. Although the phylogeny of Johnson et al. (2021) contains only one species from Asian barbets, its position would indicate that the lice of the Penenirmus -complex from these birds are not closely related to those from African and Neotropical barbets, and that some morphological similarities between species of Laimoloima species and those from African barbets (e.g. the sclerotised central part of the hyaline margin) may be the result of convergent evolution.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03AB87B6DF6AEE0929F724FFFC83FF7E	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Gustafsson, Daniel R.;Adam, Costică;Zou, Fasheng	Gustafsson, Daniel R., Adam, Costică, Zou, Fasheng (2022): One new genus and three new species of the Penenirmus-complex (Phthiraptera Ischnocera) from China, with resurrection of Picophilopterus Ansari, 1947. Zootaxa 5087 (3): 401-426, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5087.3.1
03AB87B6DF68EE0F29F72221FEC3FECE.text	03AB87B6DF68EE0F29F72221FEC3FECE.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Laimoloima tandani Gustafsson & Adam & Zou 2022	<div><p>Laimoloima tandani new species</p> <p>(Figs 10–11, 14, 16–17, 20)</p> <p>Type host. Psilopogon virens virens (Boddaert, 1783) —great barbet (Megalaimidae).</p> <p>Type locality. Shunhuangshan, Xinning Village, Chaoyuan County, Hunan Province, China.</p> <p>Diagnosis. Sharing the same position of mts1 near mts2 would suggest that Laimoloima tandani, L. ruiliensis, and L. zeylanica are more closely related to each other than to L. rafflesi. Further, the shape of the male endomere of L. tandani (Figs 15–16) is more similar to that of L. zeylanica than to that of L. ruiliensis (Figs 17–18). Laimoloima tandani can be separated from L. zeylanica by the following characters: (1) dorsal anterior plate gently rounded posteriorly in L. zeylanica, but extended posteriorly in L. tandani (Fig. 14), (2) preantennal area proportionately slightly shorter and broader in L. tandani (Fig. 14) than in L. zeylanica, (3) anterior lobes of male endomere of different shapes, and proportionately larger in L. tandani (Fig. 16) than in L. zeylanica, (4) parameres stouter in L. tandani (Figs 15–16) than in L zeylanica, (5) meso- and metasternum each with two setae on each side in L. zeylanica, but each with one seta on each side in L. tandani (Figs 10–11), (6) female tergopleurite II with two tergocentral setae on posterior margin in L. tandani (Fig. 11), but with one seta in L. zeylanica, (7) female tergopleurite VIII with one tergocentral seta in L. tandani (Fig. 11), but with two setae in L. zeylanica.</p> <p>Description. Both sexes. Head rounded trapezoidal (Fig. 14), frons broad and slightly concave, lateral margins of preantennal head slightly concave. Dorsal anterior plate roughly triangular, longer than wide. Dorsal preantennal suture diffuse posterior to ads, and illustrated approximately. In both specimens examined, the dorsal preantennal suture extends posteriorly from ads; this may be an artifact of mounting but, as it is similar in both specimens, we illustrated it as described. Marginal carina broad. Head chaetotaxy as in Fig. 14; chaetotaxy of antennae as in Figs 14a–b. Dorsal postantennal suture present, widened around aperture of pns. Gular plate with extensive rugose area centrally. Thoracic and abdominal segments and chaetotaxy as in Figs 10–11; sternal plates lightly sclerotised, and not illustrated.</p> <p>Male. Subgenital plate lightly sclerotised, and not illustrated. Tergopleurites III–VI each with three tergocentral setae on each side; tergopleurite VII with two tergocentral setae on each side. Anterior end of basal apodeme diffuse, and not illustrated; distal section with more or less parallel lateral margins, but bulging lateral margins distally (Fig. 16). Endomere longer than wide, with prominent rounded antero-lateral lobes ventrally and pointed postero-lateral lobes. Endomeral chaetotaxy as in Figs 16–17. Distal endomere asymmetrical in one examined specimen. Parameres short and broad; pst1–2 as in Fig. 17.</p> <p>Female. Subgenital plate weakly sclerotised, and here illustrated approximately (Fig. 20). Vulval margin with 14–19 long, slender setae marginally and 9–11 long, stout setae submarginally on each side; 1–2 macroseta associated with subgenital plate on each side, and 5–7 short, slender setae on each side in area between subgenital plate and vulval margin. Subvulval plates diffuse distally in one examined female, and illustrated approximately.</p> <p>Type material. Ex Psilopogon virens virens: Holotype ♂, Shunhuangshan, Xinning Village, elev. 814–855 m, Chaoyuan County, Hunan Province, China, 31 Aug. 2018, X. Chu &amp; L. Lei, bird J3634, GD-PHTH-00139 (IZGAS). Paratype: 1♀, same data as holotype, GD-PHTH-00140 (IZGAS).</p> <p>Etymology. The species epithet honours the late Bhup Kishore Tandan (formerly at the University of Lucknow, India). In our opinion, Tandan was one of the greatest phthirapterists of the 20 th century, and his published illustrations and descriptions of, especially, Asian chewing louse taxa should be considered a benchmark to strive toward by all chewing louse taxonomists.</p> <p>Remarks. Since the holotype has one antenna medianly distorted and the other with flagellomeres I–III fused (Fig. 14), we provide illustrations of the female antennae (Figs 14a–b) to depict the chaetotaxy of the antennae of B. tandani accurately, which is indistinguishable from that of males of B. ruiliensis; this suggests that there may be no differences between the antennal chaetotaxy of males of the two species. Also, some head and abdominal setae are broken on both sides of the holotype, hence they are illustrated approximately, based on the length of the same seta in the female.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03AB87B6DF68EE0F29F72221FEC3FECE	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Gustafsson, Daniel R.;Adam, Costică;Zou, Fasheng	Gustafsson, Daniel R., Adam, Costică, Zou, Fasheng (2022): One new genus and three new species of the Penenirmus-complex (Phthiraptera Ischnocera) from China, with resurrection of Picophilopterus Ansari, 1947. Zootaxa 5087 (3): 401-426, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5087.3.1
03AB87B6DF6EEE0F29F721B5FF3DF882.text	03AB87B6DF6EEE0F29F721B5FF3DF882.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Laimoloima ruiliensis Gustafsson & Adam & Zou 2022	<div><p>Laimoloima ruiliensis new species</p> <p>(Figs 12–13, 15, 18–19, 21)</p> <p>Type host. Psilopogon asiaticus asiaticus (Latham, 1790) —blue-throated barbet (Megalaimidae).</p> <p>Type locality. Wudiancun, Ruili County, Yunnan Province, China.</p> <p>Diagnosis. Laimoloima ruiliensis can be separated from L. zeylanica and L. tandani by having a proportionately shorter preantennal area (Fig. 15) and from L. rafflesi by the position of mts1 near mts2 rather than near posterior margin of eye. The shape of the male endomere suggests that L. ruiliensis is closer to L. zeylanica than to L. tandani.</p> <p>Furthermore, Laimoloima ruiliensis can be separated from L. zeylanica by the following characters: dorsal anterior plate with rounded posterior margin in L. zeylanica, but with tapering posterior margin in L. ruiliensis (Fig. 15); male tergopleurites III–IV with two tergocentral setae on each side in L. ruiliensis (Fig. 12), but with three tergocentral setae on each side in L. zeylanica; female tergopleurites V–VI each with three tergocentral setae on each side in L. ruiliensis (Fig. 13), but with two setae on each side in L. zeylanica; male genitalia of L. zeylanica are illustrated without much detail by Dalgleish (1967: fig. 4), but the general shape of the endomeres and thickness of their distal sections differ between the two species (Fig. 19).</p> <p>Description. Both sexes. Head rounded trapezoidal (Fig. 15), frons slightly concave, lateral margins of preantennal area concave. Dorsal preantennal plate tapering to blunt posterior point. Dorsal preantennal suture diffuse in posterior end, and illustrated approximately. Marginal carina broad. Head chaetotaxy as in Fig. 15. Dorsal postantennal suture present, widened around aperture of pns. Gular plate with extensive rugose area centrally. Thoracic and abdominal segments and chaetotaxy as in Figs 12–13; sternal and subgenital plates lightly sclerotised, and not illustrated.</p> <p>Male. Tergopleurites II–III each with two tergocentral setae on each side; tergopleurites V–VII each with three tergocentral setae on each side. Anterior end of basal apodeme diffuse, and not illustrated; distal section with parallel lateral margins converging distally (Fig. 18). Endomere with lateral extensions at midline dorsally; endomere with moderate, somewhat angular anterior lobes and pointed posterior lobes ventrally (Fig. 19). Endomeral chaetotaxy as in Figs 18–19. Parameres short and broad; pst1–2 as in Fig. 19.</p> <p>Female. Vulval margin with 11–13 long, slender, marginal setae, and 8–11 long, stout, submarginal setae on each side; two macroseta associated with lightly sclerotised subgenital plate on each side, and four short, slender setae on each side in area between subgenital plate and vulval margin. Subvulval plates elongate, widening distally (Fig. 21).</p> <p>Type material. Ex Megalaima asiaticus asiaticus: Holotype ♂, Wudiancun, elev. 903–1080 m, Ruili County, Yunnan Province, China, 9 Jan. 2013, Y. Wu &amp; Y. Zhang, bird J0697, GD-PHTH-00141 (IZGAS). Paratypes: 1♂, 2♀, same data as holotype, GD-PHTH-00142–00144 (IZGAS).</p> <p>Non-types: 2 nymphs, same data as holotype, GD-PHTH-00145–00146 (IZGAS).</p> <p>Etymology. The species epithet is derived from the type locality.</p> <p>Remarks. The male genitalia are partially obscured by gut content in the holotype, hence illustrations are based on the paratype male; the parts of the genitalia that can be seen in the holotype are identical to those of the paratype.</p></div> 	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03AB87B6DF6EEE0F29F721B5FF3DF882	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Gustafsson, Daniel R.;Adam, Costică;Zou, Fasheng	Gustafsson, Daniel R., Adam, Costică, Zou, Fasheng (2022): One new genus and three new species of the Penenirmus-complex (Phthiraptera Ischnocera) from China, with resurrection of Picophilopterus Ansari, 1947. Zootaxa 5087 (3): 401-426, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5087.3.1
