identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
2618930BFFDC0F781D17B4A2FBD4C0B2.text	2618930BFFDC0F781D17B4A2FBD4C0B2.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Brueelia (Painjunirmus) Ansari 1947	<div><p>Subgenus Painjunirmus Ansari, 1947</p><p>Brueelia Kéler, 1936: 257 (in partim).</p><p>Painjunirmus Ansari, 1947: 285 .</p><p>Type species</p><p>Painjunirmus pengya Ansari, 1947: 285, by original designation.</p><p>Diagnosis</p><p>Brueelia (Painjunirmus) is close to Brueelia (Brueelia) based on the following shared characters: as3, pns and s4 absent; dorsal preantennal suture absent and marginal carina uninterrupted [except in Br. (Br.) phasmasoma Gustafsson &amp; Bush, 2017]; mts3 only temporal macroseta; fII- v2 and fIII-v2 absent; parameral heads not folded medianly; female subgenital plate forming cross-piece at vulval margin; post-spiracular sensilla present on abdominal segments II–VII in both sexes.</p><p>These two subgenera are separated by the following characters: antennae at least slightly sexually dimorphic in Br. ( Painjunirmus) (Figs 3–4), but monomorphic in Br. ( Brueelia); fI-v4 clearly shorter than fI-v 1 in Br. ( Painjunirmus) (Fig. 1), but as long as fI-v 1 in Br. ( Brueelia); aps present on male tergopleurite IV in Br. ( Painjunirmus) (Fig. 1; also on tergopleurite III in some species; Fig. 9), but absent on male tergopleurite IV in Br. ( Brueelia) [except in Brueelia (Br.) nebulosa (Burmeister, 1838)]; ames sensilla present on gonopore in Br. ( Painjunirmus) (Fig. 6), but absent in Br. ( Brueelia); mesosomal lobes with antero-lateral “horns” in Br. ( Painjunirmus) (Fig. 6), but no such “horns” in Br. ( Brueelia).</p><p>Brueelia (Painjunirmus) is also rather similar to the genus Teinomordeus Gustafsson &amp; Bush, 2017 . These two groups share the antero-lateral “horns” of the mesosome, the slightly sexually dimorphic antennae, and the patterns of abdominal chaetotaxy of the male. However, these two groups can be separated by the following characters: cross-piece present in Br. ( Painjunirmus) (Fig. 8), but absent in Teinomordeus; head sensillus s4 present in Teinomordeus, but absent in Br. ( Painjunirmus) (Fig. 3); ps are present on female abdominal segment II in Teinomordeus, but absent in Br. ( Painjunirmus) (Fig. 2); pmes present on gonopore in Br. ( Painjunirmus) (Fig, 6), but absent in Teinomordeus .</p><p>Description</p><p>Both sexes</p><p>Head dome-shaped (Fig. 3), slightly variable between species. Lateral margins of preantennal head slightly convex to more or less straight. Frons concave, hyaline. Marginal carina uninterrupted, displaced and much widened at osculum. Head chaetotaxy as in Fig. 3; as3, pns, s4 absent; pos on or near eye. Antennae sexually dimorphic, with male scape (Fig. 3) at least slightly swollen and elongated compared to female scape (Fig. 4), but varying degree of difference among species. Temporal and occipital carinae not visible. Prothorax rectangular, psps on postero-lateral corner (Figs 1–2). Pterothorax roughly trapezoidal, but with rounded or slightly convergent posterior margin; mms moderately separated medianly. Meso- and metasterna not fused, each with 1 seta on each side on postero-lateral corners. Male tergopleurites II–IX+X and female tergopleurites II–VIII divided medianly (Figs 1–2). Tergopleurites with no or only very small antero-lateral re-entrant heads (Figs 1–2). Sternal plates with concave lateral margins (Fig. 26), in some species with lateral modifications (Figs 1–2). Accessory sternal plates absent. Pigmentation largely translucent except for sternal and subgenital plates of abdomen, gular plate, and lateral margins of head; extent of dark pigmentation variable between species, and indicated with grey lines in illustrations.</p><p>Male</p><p>Abdominal chaetotaxy rich (Fig. 1), variable among species; aps on at least tergopleurites IV–VII; tps on at least tergopleurites VI–VIII, in some species on V. Basal apodeme variable in size and shape (Figs 5, 13, 21, 29, 37). Proximal mesosome extended to overlap with basal apodeme. Antero-lateral corners of mesosomal lobes extended into “horns” (Fig. 6); distal mesosome intensely rugose; 2 pmes sensilla on each side of gonopore, associated with paler area of mesosomal lobes. Gonopore roughly crescent-shaped, with 3 ames sensilla on each side. Penile arms slender (Fig. 6). Parameral heads broad, blunt (Fig. 7). Parameral blades much elongated; pst1 sensillus, central; pst2 microsetae, on lateral margin.</p><p>Female</p><p>Abdominal chaetotaxy sparse (Fig. 2); aps, tps, and ss absent on all segments; psps present only on tergopleurites VI–VII. Subgenital plate with more or less sinuous lateral margins (Fig. 8), connected to cross-piece. Few slender vms and many thorn-like vss along vulval margin; few vos on each side of subgenital plate; distal 1 vos median to vss and separated from other vos by pronounced gap.</p><p>Host distribution</p><p>Only known from hosts in the genus Argya ( Passeriformes: Leiothrichidae).</p><p>Geographical range</p><p>Africa, Middle East, India, Myanmar [?].</p><p>Included species</p><p>• Brueelia (Painjunirmus) alba sp. nov.</p><p>• Brueelia (Painjunirmus) brevipennis Ansari, 1956a: 159 .</p><p>• Brueelia (Painjunirmus) chilchil Ansari, 1955: 53 .</p><p>• Brueelia (Painjunirmus) magnini Ansari, 1956a: 161 .</p><p>• Brueelia (Painjunirmus) parva (Mey, 2017: 164) [in Garrulaxeus] [tentatively included]</p><p>• Brueelia (Painjunirmus) pengya (Ansari, 1947: 285) [in Painjunirmus]</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/2618930BFFDC0F781D17B4A2FBD4C0B2	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.		Plazi	Gustafsson, Daniel R.;Bush, Sarah E.	Gustafsson, Daniel R., Bush, Sarah E. (2024): Resurrection of Painjunirmus Ansari, 1947 (Phthiraptera: Ischnocera) as a subgenus of Brueelia Kéler, 1936, with description of one new species. European Journal of Taxonomy 968: 174-199, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2024.968.2727, URL: https://europeanjournaloftaxonomy.eu/index.php/ejt/article/download/2727/12527
2618930BFFDA0F7B1ED7B1DDFD9BC519.text	2618930BFFDA0F7B1ED7B1DDFD9BC519.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Brueelia (Painjunirmus) chilchil (Ansari 1955)	<div><p>Brueelia (Painjunirmus) chilchil (Ansari, 1955)</p><p>Figs 1–8</p><p>Brueelia chilchil Ansari, 1955: 53–54 .</p><p>Brueelia chilchil Ansari, 1956b: 394; primary homonym.</p><p>Brueelia chilchil Ansari, 1958: 48–49, figs 9–15; primary homonym.</p><p>Brueelia chilchil – Ansari 1956a: 160, figs 63–66. — Price et al. 2003: 154. — Gustafsson &amp; Bush 2017: 37–38. — Mey 2017: 158.</p><p>Type material</p><p>Neotype PAKISTAN • ♂; Faisalabad [as Lyallpur]; 11 May 1932; M.A.R. Ansari leg.; ex Argya caudata eclipes (Hume, 1877); NHMUK010670544; NHMUK.</p><p>Other material examined</p><p>INDIA • 1 ♂, 2 ♀♀; Rajputana; Mar. 1937; R. Meinertzhagen leg.; ex Argya caudata eclipes [as Turdoides c. caudata or Argya caudata caudata]; 8922; NHMUK010709538; NHMUK • 1 ♂, 2 ♀♀; 3 Jan. 1952; Bharatpur [Rajasthan]; R. Meinertzhagen leg.; ex Argya caudata eclipes [as Turdoides c. caudata or Argya caudata caudata]); 19670, Brit. Mus. 1952-143; NHMUK010708235; NHMUK.</p><p>PAKISTAN • 2 ♀♀; same data as for neotype; ex Argya caudata eclipes [as Turdoides c. caudata or Argya caudata caudata]); NHMUK010670544; NHMUK • 6 ♂♂, 9 ♀♀; Peshawar; Mar. 1937; R. Meinertzhagen leg.; ex Argya caudata eclipes [as Turdoides c. caudata or Argya caudata caudata]); 9193–94, 9501; NHMUK010709539; NHMUK • 4 ♂♂, 16 ♀♀; same data as for preceding; 9445–47; NHMUK010709540; NHMUK .</p><p>Type host</p><p>Argya caudata eclipes (Hume, 1877) – common babbler.</p><p>Type locality</p><p>Faisalabad, Pakistan.</p><p>Description</p><p>Both sexes</p><p>Head convex dome-shaped (Fig. 3), lateral margins of preantennal area convex, frons concave. Marginal carina moderately displaced and much widened at osculum, lateral sections slender, with slightly irregular median margin. Ventral anterior plate visible. Head chaetotaxy as in Fig. 3. Extent of head pigmentation variable, extreme illustrated in Fig. 3; in many specimens area around anterior to s3 not darkly pigmented. Thoracic and abdominal segments as in Figs 1–2; proepimera with dark brown pigmentation; metepisterna, meso- and metasterna, lateral margins of tergopleurites II–VIII, and anterior and posterior sections of sternal plates with medium brown pigmentation in males and paler brown pigmentation in females.</p><p>Male</p><p>Scape as in Fig. 3. Thoracic and abdominal chaetotaxy as in Fig. 1; aps absent from tergopleurite III; tps present on tergopleurites VI–VIII; 3 ps on each of segments III–VII. Sternal plates with variable lateral extensions. Subgenital plate largely translucent, except antero-lateral corners or anterior section, which is medium brown. Basal apodeme roughly rectangular (Fig. 5). Proximal mesosome slender, rectangular, anterior margin more or less flat (Fig. 6). Mesosomal lobes with near-parallel lateral margins distally, antero-lateral horns wide, curved slightly medianly. Rugose area of distal mesosomal lobes extensive, pmes as in Fig. 6. Gonopore large, distal margin deeply concave; ames as in Fig. 6; penile arms reach to or slightly beyond distal margin of mesosomal lobes. Parameres elongated, pst1–2 as in Fig. 7.</p><p>MEASUREMENTS (n = 9, except TL where n = 8). TL = 1.45–1.68; HL = 0.37–0.39; HW = 0.31–0.34; PRW = 0.19–0.21; PTW = 0.32–0.35; AW = 0.47–0.51.</p><p>Female</p><p>Scape as in Fig. 4. Thoracic and abdominal chaetotaxy as in Fig. 2; segments II–VIII with 3 ps on each side. Sternal plates with variable lateral extensions. Subgenital plate broad, with broad connection to cross-piece (Fig. 8); pigmentation variable, typically with antero-lateral corners pale brown as in Fig. 8, but pigmented areas may be medianly continuous; in some specimens extent of pigmentation more similar to that of P. magnini (Fig. 40). Vulval margin bulging medianly (Fig. 8), with 3–4 short, slender vms and 4–5 short, thorn-like vss on each side; 4–5 short, slender vos on each side of subgenital plate; distal 1 vos median to vss.</p><p>MEASUREMENTS (n = 25 except TL where n = 22 and AW where n = 23). TL = 1.78–2.15 (1.95); HL = 0.40–0.46 (0.42); HW = 0.35–0.40 (0.37); PRW = 0.20–0.24 (0.22); PTW = 0.30–0.41 (0.36); AW = 0.53–0.64 (0.58).</p><p>Remarks</p><p>See remarks under Br. (P.) pengya Ansari, 1947, for a discussion on Mey’s (2017) claims regarding Br. (P.) chilchil . We have decided to simplify matters by designating a neotype for Brueelia chilchil Ansari, 1955 . The selection of this specimen is based on the following arguments:</p><p>1) Ansari (1955) did not specify any collection locality of his specimens, nor did he give any indication of how many specimens were examined. Later, Ansari (1956a) gave more information, including 35 specimens from Lyallpur erroneously referred to as “ paratypes ”, which is invalid as paratypes must be designated in the original publication. Ansari (1956a) also mentioned the examination of 3 specimens from Bharatpur (Rajputana), which were from the Meinertzhagen collection.</p><p>2) No identification numbers of any of these specimens were given, but Ansari (1956a: 133) stated that all types are in the NHMUK collection. As stated by Naz et al. (2020), only three specimens from Lyallpur remain at the NHMUK. This slide is labeled with a red T on the front, and an additional label on the reverse saying “(paratypes?)”. While this implies that someone, possibly Ansari, considered these specimens to be types, the significance of the red T has been lost; it is not found on other slides Ansari deposited at the NHMUK.</p><p>3) The specimens at NHMUK may be from the set of specimens considered “ paratypes ” by Ansari (1956a). However, this cannot be ascertained today; nor could any of them be designated the lectotype, as no paratypes were mentioned at the original description (Ansari 1955). To avoid any future confusion around the identity of this species, we designate the male on this slide the neotype, whereas the females on this slide have no special status.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/2618930BFFDA0F7B1ED7B1DDFD9BC519	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.		Plazi	Gustafsson, Daniel R.;Bush, Sarah E.	Gustafsson, Daniel R., Bush, Sarah E. (2024): Resurrection of Painjunirmus Ansari, 1947 (Phthiraptera: Ischnocera) as a subgenus of Brueelia Kéler, 1936, with description of one new species. European Journal of Taxonomy 968: 174-199, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2024.968.2727, URL: https://europeanjournaloftaxonomy.eu/index.php/ejt/article/download/2727/12527
2618930BFFD90F761EF6B474FDD9C301.text	2618930BFFD90F761EF6B474FDD9C301.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Brueelia (Painjunirmus) brevipennis (Ansari 1956)	<div><p>Brueelia (Painjunirmus) brevipennis (Ansari, 1956a)</p><p>Figs 9–16</p><p>Brueelia brevipennis Ansari, 1956a: 159, figs 60–62.</p><p>Brueelia brevipennis – Price et al. 2003: 153. — Gustafsson &amp; Bush 2017: 37–38. — Mey 2017: 157.</p><p>Type material</p><p>Holotype PALESTINE • ♂; Jericho; 24 Nov. 1922; P.A. Buxton leg.; ex Argya squamiceps squamiceps (Cretzschmar, 1826) [as Argya squamiceps (Cretzschmar, 1827)]; NHMUK010670537; NHMUK .</p><p>Paratypes PALESTINE • 2 ♂♂; same data as for holotype; NHMUK010708240–1; NHMUK .</p><p>Other material examined</p><p>ISRAEL • 1 ♂, 1 ♀; Masada [as Metzada]; 2 May 1958; ex Argya squamiceps squamiceps [as Argya squamiceps]; 326, Brit. Mus. 1958-520; NHMUK010708242; NHMUK .</p><p>Type host</p><p>Argya squamiceps squamiceps (Cretzschmar, 1826) – Arabian babbler.</p><p>Type locality</p><p>Jericho, Palestine.</p><p>Description</p><p>Both sexes</p><p>Head convex dome-shaped (Fig. 11), lateral margins of preantennal area convex, frons shallowly concave. Marginal carina shallowly displaced and much widened at osculum; lateral sections slender, with slightly irregular median margin. Ventral anterior plate not visible. Head chaetotaxy as in Fig. 11. Pigmentation limited to near marginal carina and antennal socket. Thoracic and abdominal chaetotaxy as in Figs 9–10; proepimera and metepisterna with dark brown pigmentation; lateral margins of tergopleurites, anterior and posterior sections of sternal plates, and anterior ends of subgenital plates of both sexes with medium brown pigmentation.</p><p>Male Scape as in Fig. 11. Thoracic and abdominal chaetotaxy as in Fig. 9; aps present on tergopleurite III; tsp present on tergopleurites V–VIII; 2 ps on each side of segments III and VII, 3 ps on each side of segments IV–VI. Sternal plates without lateral extensions. Subgenital plate with pigmentation along anterior margin, in some specimens also with lighter pigmentation submarginally farther posterior. Basal apodeme slender, slightly constricted at mid-length (Fig. 13). Proximal mesosome short and broad, somewhat rounded (Fig. 14). Mesosomal lobes convergent distally, antero-lateral horns short, slender, much curved. Rugose area of distal mesosome extensive; pmes as in Fig. 14. Gonopore broad, distal margin deeply concave; ames as in Fig. 14; penile arms do not reach distal margin of mesosomal lobes. Parameres much elongated, pst1–2 as in Fig. 15.</p><p>MEASUREMENTS (n = 3). TL = 1.66–1.72; HL = 0.39–0.41; HW = 0.35–0.37; PRW = 0.22–0.24; PTW = 0.36–0.37; AW = 0.49–0.57.</p><p>Female</p><p>Thoracic and abdominal chaetotaxy as in Fig. 10; segments III–VII with 2 ps on each side. Sternal plates without lateral extensions. Subgenital plate broad, with broad connection to cross-piece (Fig. 16); dark pigmentation limited to antero-lateral corners. Vulval margin gently rounded (Fig. 16), with 3–4 short, slender vms and 6–7 short, thorn-like vss on each side; 4 short, slender vos on each side of subgenital plate; distal 1 vos median to vss.</p><p>MEASUREMENTS (n = 1). TL = 1.89; HL = 0.43; HW = 0.38; PRW = 0.22; PTW = 0.35; AW = 0.56.</p><p>Remarks</p><p>Single examined female has a slightly tilted head, and the true head length and shape may be slightly different from that illustrated.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/2618930BFFD90F761EF6B474FDD9C301	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.		Plazi	Gustafsson, Daniel R.;Bush, Sarah E.	Gustafsson, Daniel R., Bush, Sarah E. (2024): Resurrection of Painjunirmus Ansari, 1947 (Phthiraptera: Ischnocera) as a subgenus of Brueelia Kéler, 1936, with description of one new species. European Journal of Taxonomy 968: 174-199, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2024.968.2727, URL: https://europeanjournaloftaxonomy.eu/index.php/ejt/article/download/2727/12527
2618930BFFD40F711ED1B26BFE3DC4A6.text	2618930BFFD40F711ED1B26BFE3DC4A6.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Brueelia (Painjunirmus) pengya (Ansari 1947)	<div><p>Brueelia (Painjunirmus) pengya (Ansari, 1947)</p><p>Figs 17–24</p><p>Painjunirmus pengya Ansari, 1947: 285–287, fig. 10.</p><p>Brueelia pengya – Hopkins &amp; Clay 1952: 60. — Ansari 1956a: 157–158, figs 48–54. — Price et al. 2003: 157.— Gustafsson &amp; Bush 2017: 40.— Mey 2017: 156–158, fig. 80.</p><p>Type material</p><p>Holotype PAKISTAN • 1 ♀; Faisalabad [as Lyallpur, Punjab, India]; 16 Mar. 1932; ex Argya striata sindiana (Ticehurst, 1920) [as Turdoides terricolor terricolor]; Brit. Mus. 1953-2; NHMUK010670844; NHMUK .</p><p>Allotype PAKISTAN • ♂; same data as for holotype; Brit. Mus. 1953-2; NHMUK010670844; NHMUK.</p><p>Paratypes PAKISTAN • 2 ♂♂, 1 ♀; same data as for holotype; Brit. Mus. 1953-2; NHMUK010670844; NHMUK .</p><p>Other material examined</p><p>INDIA • 2 ♀♀; Lucknow [Uttar Pradesh]; ex A. striata somervillei (Sykes, 1832) [as Turdoides somervillei]; Brit. Mus. 1951-444; NHMUK010709548; NHMUK.</p><p>LOCALITY UNKNOWN • 1 ♂, 1 ♀; ex A. striata somervillei [as Turdoides somervillei]; NHMUK010709060–1; NHMUK .</p><p>Type host</p><p>Argya striata sindiana (Ticehurst, 1920) – jungle babbler.</p><p>Type locality</p><p>Faisalabad, Pakistan.</p><p>Other hosts</p><p>Argya striata somervillei (Sykes, 1832) . Argya striata (Dumont, 1823) .</p><p>Description</p><p>Both sexes</p><p>Head convex dome-shaped (Fig. 19), lateral margins of preantennal area convex, frons shallowly concave. Marginal carina moderately displaced and much widened at osculum; lateral sections slender, with slightly irregular median margins. Ventral anterior plate not visible. Head chaetotaxy as in Fig. 19; dorsal post-antennal setae and sensilla not visible, but presumably same as in other species of Painjunirmus . Extent of head pigmentation as in Fig. 19, limited to lateral margins of head. Thoracic and abdominal segments as in Figs 17–18; proepimera, metepisterna, lateral margins of tergopleurites, and sternal plates with medium brown pigmentation; pigmentation of sternal plates paler medianly than laterally.</p><p>Male</p><p>Scape as in Fig. 19. Thoracic and abdominal chaetotaxy as in Fig. 17; aps absent from tergopleurite III; tps present on tergopleurites V–VIII; 2 ps on each side of segments III–V and VII, 3 ps one ach side of segment VI. Sternal plates without lateral extensions. Subgenital plate with dark pigmentation only on anterior margin, darker laterally than medianly. Basal apodeme broad, short, constricted at mid-length (Fig. 21). Proximal mesosome elongated, pointed (Fig. 22). Mesosomal lobes with near-parallel lateral margins distally, antero-lateral horns slender, more or less straight. Rugose area of mesosomal lobes limited to distal margin; pmes as in Fig. 22. Gonopore broad, crescent-shaped, distal margin deeply concave; ames as in Fig. 22; penile arms short, not reaching distal margin of mesosomal lobes. Parameres slender, much elongated; pst1–2 as in Fig. 23.</p><p>MEASUREMENTS (n = 1). TL = 1.39; HL = 0.38; HW = 0.32; PRW = 0.21; PTW = 0.34; AW = 0.49.</p><p>Female</p><p>Scape as in Fig. 20. Thoracic and abdominal chaetotaxy as in Fig. 18; segments III–VIII with 3 ps on each side. Sternal plates without lateral extensions. Subgenital plate broad, with broad connection to cross-piece (Fig. 24). Vulval margin gently rounded (Fig. 24), with 4 short, slender vms and 4–5 short, thorn-like vss on each side; 4–5 short, slender vos one each side of subgenital plate; distal 1 vos median to vss.</p><p>MEASUREMENTS (n = 3). TL = 1.73–1.79; HL = 0.39–0.44; HW = 0.35–0.37; PRW = 0.21–0.23; PTW = 0.35–0.38; AW = 0.49–0.58.</p><p>Remarks</p><p>Mey (2017) discussed the complicated publication history of Painjunirmus pengya, inherited from Ansari’s habit of redescribing the same species as new, often several times, in separate publications, and sometimes referring to clearly different species belonging to different genera (see Naz et al. 2020 for an example). As a large number of Ansari’s types are missing (Naz et al. 2020), and his published illustrations are often partial or include setae transposed from ventral to dorsal sides, identification of species described by Ansari necessarily include a degree of imagination.</p><p>Mey (2017) argued both that the host associations of P. pengya are doubtful, and that this species may be a synonym of either Brueelia mahrastan Ansari, 1956, or Brueelia chilchil Ansari, 1955 . As Brueelia mahrastan is today placed in the genus Priceiella Gustafsson &amp; Bush, 2017, and P. pengya sensu Ansari, 1947, is clearly not a member of this genus, they cannot be synonyms. As the holotype is also different from the potential type specimens of B. chilchil we have examined, including the neotype (see above), we also reject the suggestion that P. pengya is a synonym of B. chilchil .</p><p>We agree with Mey (2017) that there are definitely differences in the illustrations of P. pengya between Ansari (1947) and Ansari (1956a); for instance, the abdominal chaetotaxy of the male does not include any tps or ss in the illustrations of Ansari 1947, but include them in the illustrations of Ansari 1956a; notably, in both illustrations the sts appear to have been transposed to the dorsal side. Neither of these illustrations have the same chaetotaxy as that illustrated here, which corresponds to the chaetotaxy of the allotype (but is based on the non-type male; Fig. 17). There are also differences in the shape of the male genitalia, but not necessarily in the structure, although detail is too scant to be sure. As these drawings are made by different people (see signatures on plates), and possibly based on different specimens, the differences are here not considered significant; however, we hope that the illustrations and description of this species provided here will be able to replace these older illustrations.</p><p>Concerning the doubtful host association, Mey (2017) based this primarily on the idea that “it is hard to believe that these two host species [ Turdoides striata and Turdoides caudata, the originally given host species of P. pengya] are parasitized by the same louse species in nature” (Mey 2017: 156; our translation). This is common throughout the Brueelia -complex (Gustafsson &amp; Bush 2017), but does not appear to be the case here: specimens from other T. striata are conspecific with the types of P. pengya, whereas specimens from T. caudata represent a different species ( B. chilchil). Different louse species thus parasitize on different host species in this case, but there seem to be no reason to doubt that Ansari’s host associations are erroneous. The neotype designation of B. chilchil above should put this matter to rest.</p><p>Note that specimens we have seen from T. striata from Nepal do not represent P. pengya and are here described as a new species.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/2618930BFFD40F711ED1B26BFE3DC4A6	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.		Plazi	Gustafsson, Daniel R.;Bush, Sarah E.	Gustafsson, Daniel R., Bush, Sarah E. (2024): Resurrection of Painjunirmus Ansari, 1947 (Phthiraptera: Ischnocera) as a subgenus of Brueelia Kéler, 1936, with description of one new species. European Journal of Taxonomy 968: 174-199, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2024.968.2727, URL: https://europeanjournaloftaxonomy.eu/index.php/ejt/article/download/2727/12527
2618930BFFD30F6C1D1BB5C1FDF2C4FD.text	2618930BFFD30F6C1D1BB5C1FDF2C4FD.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Brueelia (Painjunirmus) alba Gustafsson & Bush 2024	<div><p>Brueelia (Painjunirmus) alba sp. nov.</p><p>urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: EBA67F37-C773-48C5-A8AB-E1AEA64A4B7A</p><p>Figs 25–32</p><p>Diagnosis</p><p>Brueelia (Painjunirmus) alba sp. nov. is most similar to Br. (P.) chilchil, and Br. (P.) magnini, with which it shares the following characters: aps absent from male tergopleurite III (Figs 1, 25, 33) and proximal mesosome slender and more or less rectangular (Figs 6, 30, 38).</p><p>Brueelia (Painjunirmus) alba sp. nov. is separated from Br. (P.) chilchil on the following characters: sternal plates not modified laterally in Br. (P.) alba (Figs 25–26), but modified in Br. (P.) chilchil (Figs 1–2); lateral margins of mesosome distally convergent in Br. (P.) alba (Fig. 30), but near-parallel in Br. (P.) chilchil (Fig. 6); parameres much more slender in Br. (P.) alba (Fig. 31) than in Br. (P.) chilchil (Fig. 7); basal apodeme slender in Br. (P.) alba (Fig. 29), but broader in Br. (P.) chilchil (Fig. 5); vulval margin gently rounded in Br. (P.) alba (Fig. 32), but with median bulge in Br. (P.) chilchil (Fig. 8).</p><p>Brueelia (Painjunirmus) alba sp. nov. is separated from Br. (P.) magnini on the following characters: male abdominal segments III–V with 3 ps on each side in Br. (P.) alba (Fig. 25), but 2 ps on each side in Br. (P.) magnini (Fig. 33); proximal mesosome smaller in Br. (P.) alba (Fig. 30) than in Br. (P.) magnini (Fig. 38); female subgenital plate roughly quadratic in Br. (P.) alba (Fig. 32), but more trapezoidal in Br. (P.) magnini (Fig. 40).</p><p>Etymology</p><p>The species epithet is derived from the Latin ‘ alba ’ for ‘white ’, referring to the near-complete lack of pigmentation in this species.</p><p>Type material</p><p>Holotype NEPAL • ♂; Mar. 1937; R, Meinertzhagen leg.; ex Argya striata striata (Dumont, 1823) [as Turdoides terricolor terricolor]; 9339; NHMUK010709544; NHMUK .</p><p>Paratypes NEPAL • 3 ♀♀; same data as for holotype; 9339–40; NHMUK010709545; NHMUK .</p><p>Type host</p><p>Argya striata striata (Dumont, 1823) – jungle babbler.</p><p>Type locality</p><p>Nepal.</p><p>Description</p><p>Both sexes</p><p>Head convex dome-shaped (Fig. 27), lateral margins of preantennal area slightly convex, frons shallowly concave. Marginal carina deeply displaced and much widened at osculum, lateral sections slender with slightly irregular median margins. Ventral anterior plate not visible. Head chaetotaxy as in Fig. 27. Extent of head pigmentation as delimited by thin dotted line in Fig. 27, interior of preantennal nodi unpigmented. Thoracic and abdominal segments as in Figs 25–26; proepimera with light brown pigmentation; metepisterna, metasternum, and anterior and posterior sections of sternal plates with very faint brown pigmentation.</p><p>Male</p><p>Scape as in Fig. 27. Distal abdomen destroyed during mounting of single examined male, and not illustrated. Thoracic and abdominal chaetotaxy as in Fig. 25; aps absent from tergopleurite III; tps present on tergopleurites VI–VII; 3 ps on each side of segments III–V and VII, 2 ps on each side of segment VI. Sternal plates without lateral extensions. Subgenital plate with very pale brown pigmentation in anterior end, distal end missing in specimen. Basal apodeme long and slender (Fig. 29). Proximal mesosome short, roughly rectangular (Fig. 30). Lateral margins of mesosomal lobes convergent distally, antero-lateral horns short, more or less straight. Rugose area of distal mesosome extensive; pmes as in Fig. 30. Gonopore small, distal margin deeply concave; ames as in Fig. 30. Parameres slender, much elongated; pst1–2 as in Fig. 31.</p><p>MEASUREMENTS (n = 1). HL = 0.36; HW = 0.31; PRW = 0.20; PTW = 0.33; AW = 0.49.</p><p>Female</p><p>Scape as in Fig. 28. Thoracic and abdominal chaetotaxy as in Fig. 26; segment II with 2 ps on each side, segments III–VIII with 3 ps on each side. Sternal plates without lateral extensions. Subgenital plate with very faint brown pigmentation in anterior end, but posterior limit of pigmentation diffuse and not illustrated; plate moderately broad, with broad connection to cross-piece (Fig. 32). Vulval margin gently rounded to slightly flattened medianly (Fig. 32), with 3 short, slender vms and 3–5 short, thorn-like vss on each side; 4 short, slender vos on each side of subgenital plate; distal 1 vos median to vss.</p><p>MEASUREMENTS (n = 3). TL = 1.80–2.01; HL = 0.41; HW = 0.34–0.36; PRW = 0.21–0.22; PTW = 0.34– 0.36; AW = 0.56–0.60.</p><p>Remarks</p><p>The occurrence of two different species of Brueelia (Painjunirmus) on Turdoides striata in different parts of its range may indicate that these species are geographically limited. No detailed collection locality is given on the type slides, and more collections are needed to establish whether Br. (P.) alba sp. nov. is more widely distributed.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/2618930BFFD30F6C1D1BB5C1FDF2C4FD	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.		Plazi	Gustafsson, Daniel R.;Bush, Sarah E.	Gustafsson, Daniel R., Bush, Sarah E. (2024): Resurrection of Painjunirmus Ansari, 1947 (Phthiraptera: Ischnocera) as a subgenus of Brueelia Kéler, 1936, with description of one new species. European Journal of Taxonomy 968: 174-199, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2024.968.2727, URL: https://europeanjournaloftaxonomy.eu/index.php/ejt/article/download/2727/12527
2618930BFFCE0F6F1ED8B617FDA5C2C7.text	2618930BFFCE0F6F1ED8B617FDA5C2C7.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Brueelia (Painjunirmus) magnini (Ansari 1956)	<div><p>Brueelia (Painjunirmus) magnini (Ansari, 1956)</p><p>Figs 33–40</p><p>Brueelia magnini Ansari, 1956a: 161, figs 67–70.</p><p>Brueelia magnini – Price et al. 2003: 156. — Gustafsson &amp; Bush 2017: 40. — Mey 2017: 158.</p><p>Type material</p><p>Holotype SUDAN • ♂; Dec. 1947; R. Meinertzhagen leg., ex Argya fulva acaciae (Lichtenstein, 1823) [as Turdoides fulvus acaciae]; 17066–17068; NHMUK010670707; NHMUK .</p><p>Allotype SUDAN • ♀; same data as for holotype; 17066–17068; NHMUK010670707; NHMUK.</p><p>Paratypes (ex Argya fulva acaciae [as Turdoides fulvus acaciae]) SUDAN • 6 ♂♂, 5 ♀♀; same data as for holotype; 17066–17068; NHMUK010670707, NHMUK010708922; NHMUK .</p><p>Other material eamined</p><p>SUDAN • 4 ♂♂, 8 ♀♀; same data as for holotype; 17066–17068; NHMUK010709541; NHMUK .</p><p>Type host</p><p>Argya fulva acaciae (Lichtenstein, 1823) – fulvous chatterer.</p><p>Type locality</p><p>Sudan.</p><p>Description</p><p>Both sexes</p><p>Head convex dome-shaped (Fig. 35), lateral margins of preantennal head convex, frons shallowly concave. Marginal carina shallowly displaced and much widened at osculum, lateral sections moderate with irregular median margin. Ventral anterior plate not visible. Head chaetotaxy as in Fig. 35. Head pigmentation pale, with dark pigmentation only at preantennal and preocular nodi, and light pigmentation along marginal carina; most examined specimens are dyed red, and pigmentation patterns cannot be determined. Thoracic and abdominal segments as in Figs 33–34; proepimera, anterior and posterior sections of sternal plates, and lateral margins of tergopleurites with brown pigmentation.</p><p>Male</p><p>Scape as in Fig. 35. Thoracic and abdominal chaetotaxy as in Fig. 33; aps absent from tergopleurite III; tps present on tergopleurites VI –VIII; segments III – VII with 2 ps on each side. Sternal plates without lateral extensions. Subgenital plate with pigmentation on anterior margin and central part. Basal apodeme broad, constricted at mid-length and again near distal end (Fig. 37). Proximal mesosome more or less quadratic, narrowing slightly distally (Fig. 38). Mesosomal lobes with near-parallel to slightly convergent lateral margins distally, antero-lateral horns broad, more or less straight, widely divergent. Rugose area of distal mesosome extensive; pmes as in Fig. 38. Gonopore slender, distal margin deeply concave; ames as in Fig. 38. Parameres slender, much elongated; pst1–2 as in Fig. 39.</p><p>MEASUREMENTS (n = 5 except TL where n = 4). TL = 1.42–1.56; HL = 0.36–0.38; HW = 0.32–0.33; PRW = 0.20–0.23; PTW = 0.33–0.36; AW = 0.47–0.51.</p><p>Female</p><p>Scape as in Fig. 36. Thoracic and abdominal chaetotaxy as in Fig. 34; segment III with 2 ps on each side, segments IV–VIII with 3 ps on each side. Sternal plates without lateral extensions. Subgenital plate broad (Fig. 40), narrowing only gradually distally, with broad connection to cross-piece. Vulval margin gently rounded (Fig. 40), with 4 short, slender vms and 4–6 short, thorn-like vss on each side; 4–6 short, slender vos on each side of subgenital plate; distal 1 vos median to vss.</p><p>MEASUREMENTS (n = 8). TL = 1.80–1.91; HL =0.39–0.41; HW = 0.35–0.38; PRW = 0.23–0.24; PTW = 0.36–0.38; AW = 0.56–0.59.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/2618930BFFCE0F6F1ED8B617FDA5C2C7	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.		Plazi	Gustafsson, Daniel R.;Bush, Sarah E.	Gustafsson, Daniel R., Bush, Sarah E. (2024): Resurrection of Painjunirmus Ansari, 1947 (Phthiraptera: Ischnocera) as a subgenus of Brueelia Kéler, 1936, with description of one new species. European Journal of Taxonomy 968: 174-199, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2024.968.2727, URL: https://europeanjournaloftaxonomy.eu/index.php/ejt/article/download/2727/12527
2618930BFFCD0F681D3FB409FBABC340.text	2618930BFFCD0F681D3FB409FBABC340.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Brueelia (Painjunirmus) parva (Mey 2017)	<div><p>Brueelia (Painjunirmus) parva (Mey, 2017)</p><p>Garrulaxeus parvus Mey, 2017: 164–165, fig. 88, pl. XVI fig. 1.</p><p>Brueelia parva – Gustafsson et al. 2019d: 273.</p><p>Type host</p><p>Argya gularis (Blyth, 1855) – white-throated babbler.</p><p>Type locality</p><p>Thityapante, 50 km S of Magwe, Myanmar.</p><p>Remarks</p><p>The placement of Garrulaxeus parvus Mey, 2017, in Br. ( Painjunirmus) is based on the photo provided with the original description, which is compatible with Br. ( Painjunirmus). The photo provided by Mey (2017) lacks detail on important characters such as the preantennal structure, head, leg and abdominal chaetotaxy, and the structure of the male genitalia. In the photo this species appears to have aps on tergopleurites III–IV, similar to Br. brevipennis, but unlike this species, Br. parva also appear to have psps on tergopleurite IV; other chaetotaxy cannot be assessed accurately, as it is not clear which are dorsal and which are ventral setae in the photo. If the minute setae seen centrally on segments II–VI are ss, this would indicate that this species may belong to some subgenus of Priceiella . It is thus possible that Garrulaxeus parvus does not belong in Br. ( Painjunirmus), but a complete redescription is necessary before this species can be accurately placed and compared to other species in the Brueelia -complex.</p><p>It should be noted that the male genitalia of this species, as illustrated by Mey (2017), are difficult to homologize to any genus of the Brueelia -complex, as they are illustrated in the everted position, and the mesosome appears severely distorted. The parameral heads do not appear to be folded medianly in this species, and the distal mesosome appears to be dominated by paired, roughly rectangular, nodi, which may represent the mesosomal lobes. However, the rest of the mesosome is difficult to reconcile with the morphology of any Brueelia -complex genus known from babblers, and it is possible that the illustrated genitalia are too distorted to be adequately compared. No other illustrations were provided by Mey (2017), and the description includes no characters that are useful for placing this species in any genus. The female of this species is unknown.</p><p>Attempts to communicate with Mey about the species described in his 2017 paper, have been unanswered, and we have thus not been able to examine the holotype of Garrulaxeus parvus . Based on what can be seen in Mey’s photo of the whole body of the male, Garrulaxeus parvus may be separated from all other species of Br. ( Painjunirmus) by the relatively broad and short preantennal area.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/2618930BFFCD0F681D3FB409FBABC340	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.		Plazi	Gustafsson, Daniel R.;Bush, Sarah E.	Gustafsson, Daniel R., Bush, Sarah E. (2024): Resurrection of Painjunirmus Ansari, 1947 (Phthiraptera: Ischnocera) as a subgenus of Brueelia Kéler, 1936, with description of one new species. European Journal of Taxonomy 968: 174-199, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2024.968.2727, URL: https://europeanjournaloftaxonomy.eu/index.php/ejt/article/download/2727/12527
2618930BFFCA0F681F90B2B0FAB5C4E7.text	2618930BFFCA0F681F90B2B0FAB5C4E7.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Brueelia (Painjunirmus) Ansari 1947	<div><p>Key to the species of Brueelia (Painjunirmus) Ansari, 1947</p><p>Note that the species Br. (Painjunirmus) parva (Mey, 2017) is not included in this key, as the original description, illustration and photos are inadequate to compare it with other species in this subgenus, and its relationship to Br. ( Painjunirmus) is unclear.</p><p>1. Male tergopleurite III with aps (Fig. 9); proximal mesosome wider than long (Fig. 14); female vulval margin with more than 5 vss (Fig. 16) ..................................................................................... ........................................................................ Brueelia (Painjunirmus) brevipennis (Ansari, 1956)</p><p>– Male tergopleurite III without aps; proximal mesosome longer than wide; female vulval margin with 5 vss or fewer .................................................................................................................................... 2</p><p>2. Male tergopleurite V with at least 1 tps (Fig. 17); proximal mesosome elongated, pointed (Fig. 22) ............................................................................... Brueelia (Painjunirmus) pengya (Ansari, 1947) .</p><p>– Male tergopleurite V without tps; proximal mesosome more or less rectangular ............................ 3</p><p>3. Sternal plates with lateral extensions, more prominent in male (Fig. 1) than in female (Fig. 2); vulval margin with median bulge (Fig. 8) ....................... Brueelia (Painjunirmus) chilchil (Ansari, 1955)</p><p>– Sternal plates without lateral extensions (but may have concave lateral margins); vulval margin gently rounded .................................................................................................................................. 4</p><p>4. Male abdominal segments III–V with 2 ps on each side (Fig. 33); shape of male mesosome as in Fig. 38; shape of female subgenital plate as in Fig. 40 ....................................................................... .............................................................................. Brueelia (Painjunirmus) magnini (Ansari, 1956)</p><p>– Male abdominal segments III–V with 3 ps on each side (Fig. 25); shape of male mesosome as in Fig. 30; shape of female subgenital plate as in Fig. 32 ......... Brueelia (Painjunirmus) alba sp. nov.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/2618930BFFCA0F681F90B2B0FAB5C4E7	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.		Plazi	Gustafsson, Daniel R.;Bush, Sarah E.	Gustafsson, Daniel R., Bush, Sarah E. (2024): Resurrection of Painjunirmus Ansari, 1947 (Phthiraptera: Ischnocera) as a subgenus of Brueelia Kéler, 1936, with description of one new species. European Journal of Taxonomy 968: 174-199, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2024.968.2727, URL: https://europeanjournaloftaxonomy.eu/index.php/ejt/article/download/2727/12527
