On the identity of some poorly known lithobiid centipedes described by Karl Verhoeff (Chilopoda: Lithobiomorpha)
Author
Stoev, Pavel
text
Zootaxa
2005
2004-01-05
796
1
12
journal article
10.5281/zenodo.170548
ba61fa3a-f2a2-4aa1-b84e-3ca6086cb0ca
11755326
170548
Harpolithobius dollfusi
(
Verhoeff, 1901
)
comb. n.
Figs 1–4
,
14
Lithobius Dollfusi
Verhoeff, 1901: 173
.
Lithobius dolfusi
[sic!]:
Matic, 1964: 188
;
1966: 252
.
Lithobius dollfusi
:
Moritz & Fischer, 1979: 318
.
Harpolithobius intermedius
Matic, 1958: 91
,
Figs 1–3
syn. n.; 1961a: 166; 1961b: 81–84, Figs 20– 22; 1966: 90, Fig. 35a–c.
Harpolithobius intermedius transsylvanicus
Matic, 1958: 93
syn. n.
Harpolithobius spinipes intermedius
:
Dobroruka, 1960: 200
.
Harpolithobius
cf.
intermedius
: Deltshev et al., 2000: 535
.
Harpolithobius
cf.
intermedius
:
Stoev, 2002: 55
.
Harpolithobius intermedius
:
Ilie, 2003a: 89
;
2003b: 132
.
Harpolithobius
cf.
intermedius
:
Ilie et al., 2003: 93
.
Material examined: female
syntype
mounted on a slide No. 249, Coll. Verhoeff, labelled “
Rumänien
,
ZMB
No 13 529”;
lectotype
by present designation. The fate of the other
syntypes
is unknown, so herein I designate as
lectotype
the only available and comparatively wellpreserved specimen.
Verhoeff (1901)
described
Lithobius dollfusi
from Laculeţe and Azuga,
Romania
. The taxonomic status of the species has never been reconsidered, and subsequent researchers never found it.
L. dollfusi
was even missed in
Verhoeff’s (1937)
sophisticated key to the species of the genus
Lithobius
, an argument used by
Matic (1964
,
1966
) to declare it, mistakenly, as a “nomen nudum”! The examined material, though broken into pieces and mounted on a permanent microscope slide, allowed observation of some important characters revealing its identity. Immediately evident is the fact that
L. dollfusi
belongs to the genus
Harpolithobius
Verhoeff, 1904
, which at the time of the original species description had not yet been established. The genus
Harpolithobius
is characterized by a number of synapomorphies, e.g. prosternal edge not incised medially, porodonts always thickened; male posterior legs with modifications, etc., and is hitherto known to comprise more than 30 species and subspecies. The genus range includes
Asia Minor
, the Caucasus, the Balkans, the Carpathians, and the Alps, with one species,
H. anodus
(Latzel, 1880)
, reaching the Ligurian Apennines to the west (
Zapparoli, 2003
). It has never been an object of comprehensive revision, and many taxa, especially from the Balkans and
Asia Minor
, still await a proper redescription. So far, eight species are known from
Romania
, four of which occur exclusively within the country boundaries (cf.
Matic, 1966
). One of these is
Harpolithobius intermedius
(including its junior synonym
H. intermedius transsylvanicus
) described from Valea Ord ă ncuŞei (Ord ă ncuŞei Valley), the Apuseni Mts. and Torda (= Turzii) Gorge,
Romania
(
Matic, 1958
). It was downgraded to a subspecies of
H. spinipes
Folkmanova, 1958
by
Dobroruka (1960)
, but
Matic (1961a)
resurrected its full species rank and added new data on its morphology (
Matic, 1961b
). According to
Matic (1961a)
H. spinipes
is well distinguished from
H. intermedius
by the tripartite female gonopodial claw (vs. single), shorter and thicker gonopodial spurs, first legpair richer in ventral spines and having unmodified tibiae (vs. single ventral spine and enlarged tibiae), etc.
Recently,
H. intermedius
was recorded also from the Anina Mts., Banat (
Ilie, 2003a
,
Ilie et al., 2003
) and the region of CloŞani, Oltenia (
Ilie, 2003b
). Stoev (in Deltshev et al., 2000) mentioned it for the Central Stara Planina Mts.,
Bulgaria
(record repeated in
Stoev, 2002
) without confidence about its identification.
H. intermedius
was distinguished from the other congeners by a number of characters, the most striking being the presence of a single female gonopodial claw. Though apparent, Matic failed to mention its close resemblance to
L. dollfusi
. A direct comparison between the two species, which is based on both the literature (cf.
Verhoeff, 1901
;
Matic, 1958
,
1961a
,
b
,
1966
) and original data from the
lectotype
, is given below in
Table 1
. Data deriving from the personal examination of Victoria Ilie (in litt.) of both the
types
of
H. intermedius
in the Zoological Museum, Cluj and his own material were also taken into account. The table shows that the main taxonomic characters of the two species overlap considerably, which is a reason to propose the following new synonymy and combination:
Harpolithobius dollfusi
(
Verhoeff, 1901
)
comb. n.
=
H. intermedius
Matic, 1958
syn. n.
General distribution.
Romania
: Apuseni Mts., Torda Gorge, Anina Mts., CloŞani;
Bulgaria
?: Central Stara Planina Mts.
FIGURES 1–4.
Harpolithobius dollfusi
(
Verhoeff, 1901
)
: 1 – head, dorsal view; 2 – maxillipede, ventral view; 3 – coxa, ventrolateral view; 4 – female gonopods, ventral view. Scale bars: 1 mm (Figs 1–2), 0.5 mm (Fig. 4).
TABLE 1.
A morphological comparison between
H. dollfusi
and
H. intermedius
.
|
Characters
|
H. dollfusi
|
H. intermedius
|
| Body size |
16 mm |
18–21 mm |
| Number of antennal articles |
45–48 |
(33) 44–49 (57) |
| Number of ocelli |
15–17 |
(14) 17–21 |
| Teeth on maxillipede coxosternum |
2+2a |
2+2 |
| Coxal pores |
6, 6, 7, 6 |
6, 6, 7, 5 (6) |
| Ventral spinulation of 15th legpair |
0, 1, 3, 3, 1 |
0, 1, 3, 3, 1 |
| Female gonopodial spurs |
2+2 moderately long |
2+2 moderately long |
| Female gonopodial claw |
Simple |
Simple |
a There are not prosternal teeth in the examined
syntype
although in the original description
Verhoeff (1901)
reported 2+2 teeth as characterizing the species. It could be due to an individual variation, which is known also in other congeners, namely
H. anodus
(Latzel, 1882)
(cf.
Eason, 1982
).