Olivinirmus semiannulatus (Piaget, 1883) Bush, 2017

Bush, Sarah E., 2017, Morphological revision of the hyperdiverse Brueelia - complex (Insecta: Phthiraptera: Ischnocera: Philopteridae) with new taxa, checklists and generic key, Zootaxa 4313 (1), pp. 1-443 : 201-202

Olivinirmus semiannulatus species-group

* Olivinirmus semiannulatus ( Piaget, 1883: 156) n. comb. [in Nirmus ] Brueelia elegans Ansari, 1957c: 122 [4]

[1] There are two species called Brueelia affinis in the checklist of Price et al. (2003). Nirmus affinis Nitzsch [in Giebel], 1874 was described from Garrulus glandarius ( Linnaeus, 1758) , but this name was preoccupied by Nirmus affinis Children, 1836 [= Lagopoecus affinis ], from Lagopus lagopus ( Linnaeus, 1758). In addition , Br. affinis (Nitzsch [in Giebel]) is an unnecessary new name for Nirmus glandarii Denny, 1842 , and therefore here regarded as a junior synonym of this name following Hopkins & Clay (1952: 53). Brueelia nitzschi affinis Carriker, 1963 was described from Cyanocorax affinis affinis Pelzeln, 1856 and is here considered a valid species, following Price et al. (2003). However, Carriker (1963) and subsequent authors seem to have overlooked that Hopkins & Clay (1952: 53) placed Nirmus affinis Nitzsch [in Giebel] in Brueelia , thus making Br. affinis Carriker a junior homonym. The fact that Br. affinis (Nitzsch [in Giebel]) is a junior synonym does not make it unavailable [see Article 10.6 of the ICZN (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 1999)], hence the name Br. affinis Carriker, 1963 is preoccupied by Br. affinis (Nitzsch [in Giebel], 1874), although this species was first a primary homonym of N. affinis Children , and then a junior synonym of B. glandarii (Denny) . We propose the name Olivinirmus paraffinis nomen novum to replace Br. affinis Carriker, 1963 from Cyanocorax affinis affinis .

[2] Carriker (1963: 305) stated that the species here placed in the Ol. morionus species-group are “very homogeneous and great care must be taken in evaluating their systematic status”. This cannot be emphasized enough. Only Ol. clayae and Ol. violaceus are markedly different from Ol. nitzschi , and determination of other species must be approached with caution, a process made difficult by the vagueness of many of the original descriptions. It is possible that these lice all belong to the same euryxenous species, and ultimately many of these species may be synonymized. The material available to us is not sufficient to properly evaluate species limits in the group at this time.

[3] The type host of this species was given by Carriker (1963) as “ Cyanocorax cyana (Linné) ”, while Price et al. (2003) listed the type host as Cyanopica cyana (Pallas, 1776) . There is no such species as “ Cyanocorax cyana (Linné) ”, but there is a Cyanocorax cayanus (Linnaeus, 1766) , which is widely distributed in Venezuela ( Madge & Burn 1999), where the holotype was collected. In contrast, Cyanopica cyana is restricted to the Old World. The host name given by Carriker (1963) is most likely a misspelling, which lead to an erroneous interpretation of the host by Price et al. (2003). Therefore, we regard Cyanocorax cayanus as the type host of Ol. Cyaneus.

[4] We tentatively accept this synonymy, following Price et al. (2003), but note that the issue is very complicated, and should be addressed more thoroughly in future work on this genus.