THE GENUS ORNITHOICA. RONDANI (Diptera: Hippoboscidae)X
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Pacific Insects Monograph 10: 10-124 November 30, 1966 THE GENUS ORNITHOICA. RONDANI (Diptera: Hippoboscidae)x By T. C. Maa2 Abstract: The genus Ornithoica Rndn. of the world is here revised on the basis of examination of over 3,000 specimens in 20 different institutes and personal collections. It is divided into Orni thoica s. s. and Lobolepis n. subgen., with the former subdivided into 5 species-groups. Totally 22 species are recognized, with zamicra (New Guinea), rabori (Philippines), bistativa (Borneo etc.), tridens (Taiwan), simplicis (New Guinea etc.), hovana (Madagascar), podargi (New Guinea), aequisenta (New Britain etc.), and punctatissima (Solomon Is.), described as new. Each species is fully characterized and illustrated and its distribution, host preference and systematic affinities, discussed and analysed. A synoptic key, a short history of studies on the genus as well as selected bibliographies for different species are incorporated. In addition to 108 gynandromorphs (of ll different species), also recorded are 17 new cases of sclerital and venational abnormalities; 36, of phoresy of Mallophaga; 126, of Trenomyces infections; and 190, of mite infestations. The gynandromorphism is apparently con nected with the scarcity of males of the species in question and provides excellent specific characters. All gynandromorphs examined, except 1, are bilaterally symmetrical. The genus is primarily tropical and its occurrence in temperate countries is more or less seasonal. The distributional range is determined by both available, suitable hosts and microecology. The distributional center of Recent forms is in the Oriental Region, particularly the Papuan Subregion. The host range covers 17 orders, 59 families and 285 genera of birds, insofar as they have been determined. Of these, only about ll orders and 24 families probably serve as true breeding hosts. Examples are given for a possible means to measure the host relationship of a certain species by computing the frequency and density of infestation by the fly. The theory of host-parasite evolutionary parallelism is not applicable here since many of the species are poly- or pleioxenous and the phenomena of multiple infestation of flies on same individual birds are frequent. The genus is closest to, but quite distinctive from, Oi'nitho- phila and Ornithomya and most probably has had a long evolutionary history. It represents the most generalized form of the Recent Hippoboscidae. Within the genus, the evolutionary trend is chiefly with the decreasing extent of chaetotaxy, sclerotization, and pigmentation which are clearly adaptative devices for the parasitic life. A review of the literature on the genus Ornithoica Rondani 1878 in coordination to re-examinations of nearly all types had made it quite obvious that there exists much confusion regarding the nomenclature, distribution, and host preference as well as interrelationships of the various species. The latest revision, by Bau (1929), being hardly more than a compilation of inadequate published descriptions, proved to be not only outdated but also misleading. Therefore, it seems worthwhile to present my views on this subject so as to facilitate future workers, to stimulate more intensive collecting 1. Partial results of grants to Bishop Museum from the U. S. Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health (AI 01723-08), and USAMRDC DA-MD-49-193-62-G 47 & G65. 2. B. P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii, 96819. 1966 Maa : Studies in Hippoboscidae (Diptera) ll and to invite criticism and suggestions. The genus is apparently the most primitive in Recent Hippoboscidae and is the dominant group of this family in many tropical and subtropical countries. But owing to their minute body size, these louseflies generally have been overlooked by collectors and are consequently uncommon in collections. For instance, in 1962, I was able to find only a few dozen specimens each at the British Museum (Nat. Hist.) and U. S. National Museum, and not more than 10 each at the Genova, Paris, Stockholm and Wien Museums. Thanks to the cooperation of many cor respondents and particularly to efforts of field collectors in recent years under the able supervision of Dr. J. L. Gressitt, the collection of the genus in Bishop Museum now constitutes the largest ever assembled. This collection formed one of the chief bases for my report. Other sources of materials for the study were from the Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. (AMNH), Brit. Mus. Nat. Hist. (BMNH), Calif. Acad. Sci. (CAS), Mus. Comp. Zool. Har vard (MCZ), U. S. Nat. Mus. (USNM), and the Amsterdam (AMS), Canberra (CSIRO), Chicago (CNHM), Firenze (FRZ), Genova (GNV), K0benhavn (KBH), Leiden (LDN), Milano (MLN), Paris (PRS), Stanford (STF), Stockholm (STK) and Wien (WNM) museums and Kyushu Univ. (KU). Altogether over 3,000 specimens were studied. In the list of material examined under each species, all specimens are understood to be from Bishop Museum unless otherwise indicated. However, paratypes, as available, will be distributed to BMNH, CAS, MCZ, USNM and CSIRO. For brevity, the 2nd code symbols Bo, NG, Pl and Sl for BBM field numbers collected in Borneo, New Guinea, Philippines and Solomon Is. respectively are omitted, thus BBM 24525 stands for BBM-NG 24525 from New Guinea, and the like. For the same reason, the years of different collections are understood to be of this century unless the contrary is indicated, for instance X. 59 stands for Oct. 1959. In the descriptions, identical characters mentioned under genus, subgenus or species-group are not repeated under species. With few exceptions, the drawings were made from microscopic slides by using a camera lucida or microprojector. The prepuparia were described from those dissected out of mother flies. The biblio graphies under different species are admittedly incomplete. Names, limits and arrange ment of orders and families of birds are adopted from Mayr & Amadon (1951). In part of the New Guinean material, only vernacular names were available for host birds. To facilitate analysis of host data, guesswork of such names was undertaken, chiefly by consulting T. Iredale's "Birds of New Guinea" (1956. 280 + 261 pp., in 2 vols. Georgian House, Melbourne). Thus : "Bower-bird": Ptilinorhynchidae. "Broadbill": Muscicapinae, Muscicapidae, proba bly Peltops sp., although the term generally refers to Eurylaimidae which are unknown in New Guinea. "Butcher-bird" : Cracticidae, most probably Cracticus cassicus; the term butcher-bird is often applied in other countries for Lautus, Laniidae. "Cat-bird" : Ptilino rhynchidae, most probably an Ailuroedus. "Cougal", or "Coucal" or "Couckle" : Cucu- lidae, most probably Centropus sp. "Cuckoo-Shrike": Campephagidae. "Dollarbird": almost certainly Eurystomus orientalis, the only known Coraciid in New Guinea. "Echong" : Pachycephalinae, Muscicapidae, probably a Pachycephala. "Friar-bird" : Me liphagidae, probably a Philemon. "Frogmouth" or "Frogmouth-owl": Podargidae, per haps including Aegothelidae. "Gracal" or "Grackle" : Sturnidae, probably Mino dumontii, although the term is often used in other countries for Coracina ( = Graucalus), Cam pephagidae. "Honeysucker": Meliphagidae. "Kokomo": almost certainly Rhyticeros 12 Pae. Ins. Mon. 10 plicatus, the only Bucerotid known in New Guinea. "Kookaburra" : Alcedinidae, probably Dacelo leachii. "Leatherneck": Oriolidae, probably Oriolus szalayi. "Lorikeet": Psit- tacidae; the "Rainbow Lorikeet" probably refers to Trichoglossus haematodus. "Nightjar": Caprimulgidae, probably a Caprimulgus. "Peewee" : (?) a certain passerine bird. "Rifle- bird" : Paradisaeidae, probably Craspedophora or its relative. "Satin-bird": Ptilino- rhynchidae. "Shrike": most probably Lanius schah, the only Laniid known in New Guinea. "Wood-shrike": Pachycephalinae, Muscicapidae, probably a Pitohai; the term wood-shrike, however, generally refers to Prionopidae which are unknown in New Guinea. Other common names in association with specimens, such as hawk, kestrel, falcon, kingfisher, plover, owl, dove, pigeon, cockatoo, crow, jay, flycatcher, sunbird, robin, thrush, warbler, wren, wagtail, honeyeater and bird-of-paradise, hardly need any explanation. Acknowledgements: Without the most generous assistance I have received every where, the completion of this report would have been almost impossible. For the privilege of studying the material contained in the above-mentioned museums, my sincere thanks are due to V. Baldasseroni (Firenze), M. Beier (Wien), C. Conci (Milano), P. J. Darlington, Jr. (Cambridge, Mass.), P. R. Ehrlich (Stanford), J. L. Gressitt (Honolulu), D. Guiglia (Genova), D. S. Hill (London), E. Kjellander (Stockholm), G. Kruseman (Am sterdam), H. B. Leech (San Francisco), M. A. Lieftinck (Leiden), H. Oldroyd (London), S. J. Paramonov (Canberra), J. G. Rozen, Jr. (New York), E. Seguy (Paris), A. Stone (Washington, D. C.) and R. L. Wenzel (Chicago). I am also deeply indebted to Miss S. Nakata for her endless help with the handling of the material and manuscript, to R. Traub, R. E. Elbel and many others for material, information etc., to Miss M. F. Tan for her extraordinary patience in preparing the illustrations and to J. S. Kuo who has painstakingly counted and measured the body setae of various species. HISTORICAL RESUME Insofar as the Systematics is concerned, more important events in the history of the genus are : 1812. Latreille described the first species of the genus, turdi, which was then placed under Ornithomya. 1823-68. Under Ornithomya again, the following Ornithoica