An overview of the extant genera and subgenera of the order Scolopendromorpha (Chilopoda): a new identification key and updated diagnoses Author Schileyko, Arkady A. schileyko1965@gmail.com Author Vahtera, Varpu varpu.vahtera@gmail.com Author Edgecombe, Gregory D. 0000-0002-9591-8011 schileyko1965@gmail.com text Zootaxa 2020 2020-08-10 4825 1 1 64 journal article 8703 10.11646/zootaxa.4825.1.1 5ab5f5c8-481e-4d1a-8643-21e72c367278 1175-5326 4402145 F230F199-1C94-4E2E-9CE4-5F56212C015F Family Cryptopidae Kohlrausch, 1881 Synonyms. Cryptopsidae in Machado (1953: 83) Diagnosis. Eyes absent. Labrum with a single median tooth (only in a few species of Cryptops ( Cryptops ) with two additional lateral teeth; Fig. 29 ). Slender pretarsus of maxillae 2 not pectinate, more or less curved ( Figs 30, 31 ), pointed (figs 3C, 6C in Ázara & Ferreira 2013 ) or lobe-shaped (fig. 69 in Verhoeff 1934 ). Maxillary pretarsus in most species is accompanied by a ventral projection (“flange” sensu Edgecombe & Bonato 2011 , Figs 30, 31 ) but never by accessory spine(s). Anterior margin of forcipular coxosternite in most species bilobed, with some long enlarged marginal setae ( Fig. 26 ); rarely is this margin additionally chitinised or with short rounded projections (in Cryptops ( Paracryptops ) , Fig. 27 ), but never with tooth-plates. Forcipular trochantero-prefemur never with process. Sternites never with paramedian sutures, but usually with “cruciform” sutures ( Fig. 32 ), i.e. with well-developed transverse suture (sometimes with skeletal transverse ridge/thickening at its place) and with a single median longitudinal suture (more rarely sulcus) developed to varying degrees. 21 LBS; spiracles on macrosegments except for LBS 7; spiracles open, lacking flaps (fig. 4 A in Vahtera et al . 2012b ). Ultimate LBS considerably shorter than the penultimate one; coxopleuron without a process. Tarsal articles of locomotory legs ( Fig. 26 ) in most species fused in a solid tarsus (with or without visible traces of an articulation between them); legs lack both tibial and tarsal spurs. Relatively short ultimate legs ( Fig. 28 ) of “pocket knife” shape (sensu Schileyko 2009 ) forming a kind of clasping apparatus, their femur (not always), tibia and tarsus 1 in overwhelming majority of species with characteristic saw teeth, pretarsus not enlarged. Prefemur of the ultimate legs without processes (spinous ones or saw teeth), sometimes with short enlarged setae ( Fig. 28 ). Edgecombe & Bonato (2011: 393) also wrote: “Median cluster of sensilla coeloconica on clypeal part of epipharynx rhomboid, with lids covering the distal edge of the sensilla… Gizzard with stiff anteriorly-directed projections; projections without a distinct kink near their midlength”. Number of subtaxa. 1 genus, 4 subgenera. Sexual dimorphism. Unknown. Range. All tropical, subtropical and warm temperate regions. Remarks. Treated as a family in Edgecombe & Bonato (2011: 393) , Vahtera et al. (2012a: 6) , Edgecombe et al. (2012: 770) , Lewis (2013: 1) , Lewis (2016a: 575) , Stojanović, Mitić & Makarov (2019: 21) . Edgecombe and Bonato (2011: 393) divided this family into two closely related genera— Cryptops and Paracryptops , and Vahtera et al. (2012a: 13) suggested (without formalizing; see below) the latter to be a synonym of the former; so at the moment this family is monotypic. According to both Edgecombe & Bonato (2011: 393) and Lewis (2016a: 575) the genus Cryptops comprises four subgenera: Cryptops ( Cryptops ) , Trigonocryptops Verhoeff, 1906, Haplocryptops Verhoeff, 1934 and Chromatanops Verhoeff, 1906 , but we regard the latter to be a synonym of Cryptops ( Cryptops ) (see below). There is certain confusion concerning structure of the pretarsus of maxillae 2 in this family (i.e. in genus Cryptops ). Attems (1930: 7) only wrote that this structure is “schlank” (slim/slender) and gave a drawing (fig. 285) of a slightly[!] curved and apically pointed claw accompanied by a well-developed and apically rounded ventral projection. In 1934 Verhoeff, describing the new subgenus C. ( Haplocryptops ), noted two types of maxillary pretarsus in Cryptops (see below). Recent authors ( Edgecombe & Koch 2008: 883 , Koch et al . 2010: 77 , Edgecombe & Bonato 2011: 393 ) describe this pretarsus only as a “hook-like and flanged”, confirming these terms by corresponding drawings or SEMs ( Figs 30, 31 ). We note, however, that this character is not stable in Cryptops , not even being subgenus-specific as five adults of C. ( C. ) caucasius Verhoef, 1934 (Rc 6430, 8004) and two adults of C. ( C. ) anomalans Newport , 1844 (Rc 7450) show this pretarsus to be slightly curved (i.e. not hooked), apically pointed and lacking any ventral projection (see also Remarks to C. ( Paracryptops ) below). Thus there should be at least four types of this pretarsus in Cryptopidae : 1. slightly curved, apically pointed, without ventral projection, 2. slightly curved, apically pointed, with ventral projection, 3. slightly curved, lobe-shaped, with ventral projection, 4. hooklike, with ventral projection.