Abstract
Thirteen species of chewing lice in theBrueelia-complex are redescribed and illustrated. They are:BrueeliablagovescenskyiBalát, 1955, exEmberizaschoeniclus(Linnaeus, 1758);B.breueriBalát, 1955, exChlorischloris(Linnaeus, 1758);B.conocephala(Blagoveshchensky, 1940) exSittaeuropaea(Linnaeus, 1758);B.ferianciBalát, 1955, exAnthustrivialis(Linnaeus, 1758);B.gliziBalát, 1955, exFringillamontifringillaLinnaeus, 1758;B.kluziBalát, 1955, exFringillacoelebsLinnaeus, 1758;B.kratochviliBalát, 1958, exMotacillaflavaLinnaeus, 1758;B.matvejeviBalát, 1981, exTurdusviscivorusLinnaeus, 1758;B.pelikaniBalát, 1958, exEmberizamelanocephalaScopoli, 1769;B.rosickyiBalát, 1955, exSylvianisoria(Bechstein, 1792);B.vanekiBalát, 1981, exAcrocephalusschoenobaenus(Linnaeus, 1758);Guimaraesiellahaftorni(Balát, 1958) exTurdusiliacusLinnaeus, 1758;G.lais(Giebel, 1874) exLusciniamegarhynchos(Brehm, 1831). Redescriptions are made from type material where available. Holotypes are identified in Balát’s material when possible, and lectotypes are designated forB.blagovescenskyi,B.breueri,B.glizi,B.ferianci,B.kluzi,B.kratochvili,B.pelikani, andB.rosickyi; a neotype ofNirmuslaisGiebel, 1874 is designated.BrueeliaweberiBalát, 1982, is placed as a synonym ofBrueeliaconocephala(Blagoveshchensky, 1940).
Highlights
During work on a recent revision of the species-rich Brueelia-complex (Gustafsson and Bush 2017), it became apparent that the majority of the described species in this group are impossible to identify without comparison with type material
Dalgleish and Price (2003) stated that the only way to realistically deal with a super-species-rich genus like Myrsidea Waterston, 1915, is to circumscribe each revision to species of lice from the same host family; this practice is generally followed by taxonomists working on Myrsidea (e.g., Price and Johnson 2006, Sychra and Literák 2008, Kounek et al 2011)
Is the approach used for Myrsidea applicable to the Brueelia-complex as well?
Summary
Correct identification of chewing lice (Phthiraptera) to species level is often hampered by inadequate species descriptions. During work on a recent revision of the species-rich Brueelia-complex (Gustafsson and Bush 2017), it became apparent that the majority of the described species in this group are impossible to identify without comparison with type material. We take the opportunity to redescribe D. conocephala as well, based on non-type specimens in Balát’s collection. With these redescriptions, only one species of Brueelia and Guimaraesiella described by Balát remain without modern redescriptions: Guimaraesiella tovornikae (Balát, 1981). Gustafsson and Bush (2017) saw specimens identified as this species in the Brelih Collection at the Slovenian Museum of Natural History (Ljubljana, Slovenia) but did not redescribe this species
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
