On the identity of the species described in the genus Lithobius Leach, 1814 by L. J. Dobroruka from the former Czechoslovakia (Czech and Slovak Republics) (Chilopoda: Lithobiomorpha) Author Tuf, Ivan Hadrián Author Wytwer, Jolanta Author Tajovský, Karel text Zootaxa 2008 1788 37 46 journal article 10.5281/zenodo.182511 6b9264fd-88d3-4865-9d3b-9654ecd088d5 1175-5326 182511 Lithobius evae Dobroruka, 1958 Lithobius ( Lithobius ) evae Dobroruka 1958a : 26 –27, figs 1, 2 Type locality. Bukovec Hill near Jezerka, Jizerské hory Mts, Bohemia , Czech Republic . Type specimens. The original description of L. evae was based on the holotype (ɗ) and 3 paratypes (Ψ), coll. Dobroruka. Material examined. 2 ɗ and 4 Ψ with a simple label reading “ Lithobius evae n. sp. ”, from Dobroruka’s “ type collection”. These specimens are apparently non-types, although we suppose that it is mixture of holotype , paratypes and one more ɗ and Ψ (i.e. syntypes ). This material was also dried up and mildewed, now in alcohol. Remarks. This species has never been recorded since its original description; only once included in a key by Folkmanová (1959) . The main characters of this species were as follows: the presence of two short dorsal sulci in one line on the 15th tibia, one long dorsal sulcus on the 14th tibia of the male, and the second segment of the female gonopods dorsally with three long and stout setae. The spinulation of the 15th leg as stated by Dobroruka was D: 0,0,1,0,0, V: 0,1,3,2,0. None of the examined specimens had an intact 15th pair of legs, but two detached legs in the same tube were recognized as the 15th. Comparing the shape of the second segment of the female gonopod with that shown in fig. 2 in Dobroruka’s (1958a) paper, we find some differences. This segment in the figure was narrower and more elongated than what the sample showed. The female gonopods of the study specimens were clothed with long hairs on the dorsal and dorsolateral sides, something not illustrated by Dobroruka. The re-examined material differed also in several other characters: the femur of one of the detached 15th legs was thickened and dorsally gently flattened, but the tibia was without 2 sulci and the prefemur was dorsally with 2 spines instead of one. We were not able to recognize any sulci on the 14th male tibia, but only a modest depression resembling the situation observed in Lithobius tenebrosus Meinert, 1872 . The dorsal spinulation on the 15th leg (D: 1,0,2,0,0) of the restudied specimen also differed from that mentioned in the description, but the pattern observed fell well within the variation range of L. tenebrosus (cf Berg & Evenhuis 2001 ). Taxonomic note. The non-type specimens labeled as L. evae sp. n. in Dobroruka’s collection turned out to be Lithobius tenebrosus Meinert, 1872 . Most of the characters given by Dobroruka correspond also to this species. Also the key character for L. evae which was the two sulcus in one line, could be rather the result of irregularity in the depression, particularly that only one male was in the type material. Summing up above deliberation, we consider Lithobius evae Dobroruka, 1958 as a junior subjective synonym of Lithobius tenebrosus Meinert, 1872 , syn. n.