Scolopocryptops broelemanni esulcata Attems, 1938

Le, Son X., Schileyko, Arkady A. & Nguyen, Anh D., 2023, A review of Vietnamese Scolopocryptops Newport, 1844 (Chilopoda: Scolopendromorpha), with a description of S. hoanglieni n. sp. and the updated generic list of species, Zootaxa 5228 (4), pp. 441-447 : 432-437

Scolopocryptops broelemanni esulcata Attems, 1938

Figs 14–16

Scolopocryptops broelemanni esulcata Attems, 1938: 338 ;

Scolopocryptops broelemanni esulcata: Attems, 1953: 138 ;

Dinocryptops broelemanni esulcata: Schileyko, 1995: 73 ;

Dinocryptops broelemanni esulcata: Schileyko, 2007: 92 .

Locus typicus. Southern Vietnam, Lam Dong Province, Lang Biang (= Langbiang) Mountain , 1500 m a.s.l., coll. C. Dawydoff.

Material. LAM DONG Province: collected in locus typicus, (sub)adult syntypes 1 and 2 (MY 2063 in NHMW) and 1 adult non-type spm (MY 8714 in NHMW) .

Diagnosis. The only Vietnamese Scolopocryptops with spiracles on LBS 7 (diagnostic character of the former genus Dinocryptops ).

The original description (direct translation by the second author). “Body length 24 mm. Cephalic plate marginate laterally. Tergite 1 with well-developed anterior transverse suture, anterior margin of tergite 1 covered by cephalic plate. Ultimate tergite lacks median suture, with a single rounded depression in posterior third; this tergite has definite lateral margination and characteristic small pointed process at each posterior corner. Legs 1–21 with one tarsal spur, 1–20 with two tibial spurs, leg 21 with a single tibial one, leg 22 lacking spurs. In all other characters/ moments corresponds to the detailed description of S. broelemanni by Brolemann”.

Composite re-description of two syntypes MY 2063 ( NHMW) .

Antennae) composed of 17 articles (in not damaged antenna) of them 2 basal ones dorsally ( Figs 14A , 15A ) and 1 basal ventrally ( Figs 14B , 15B ) with the single long setae, following articles densely covered by minute setae.

Cephalic plate virtually as long as wide, very sparsely setose, with very definite lateral and less developed posterior margination ( Figs 14 AF, 15A).

Forcipular segment ( Figs 14B , 15B ): anterior half of coxosternite with a few hardly visible transverse sutures (median one is not recognizable). Anterior margin of coxosternite visibly sclerotised and definitely divided by a median diastema into two standard low lobes, so it does not look straight; process of trochanteroprefemur short; tarsungulum long, pointed.

Tergite 1 with anterior transverse suture, its anterior margin covered by cephalic plate ( Figs 14A , 15A ). Tergite 2 short, half (or somewhat less) as long as tergite 3. Tergal paramedian sutures not recognizable ( Figs 14C , 15C ). Lateral margination incomplete on tergites 4–10(11) ( Fig. 14D ) and nearly complete on following tergites, only tergite 23 marginate completely ( Fig. 15D ). Tergite 23 nearly as long as wide, its posterior margin much convex in the middle.

Sternites lacking sutures, with very shallow rounded depression in the center ( Fig. 15E ). Sternite 23 tongueshaped, its rounded posterior margin slightly concave in the middle ( Figs 14E , 15F ).

LBS 7 with a pair of standardly developed spiracles ( Figs 14D , 15E ).

Coxopleuron ( Figs 14E , 15F ) covered by irregularly located coxal pores of various sizes. Coxopleural processes conical, very short (much shorter than sternite 23) and diverging slightly, they visibly extended over the posterior margin of tergite 23 ( Fig. 15D ). Posterior margin of pleuron forming an acute angle, its tip definitely pointed ( Fig. 14E ).

Legs 1–21 with monopartite tarsus ( Fig. 15E ); legs 1–21 with one tarsal and two tibial spurs and 22 lacking any spur ( Fig. 14E ) legs 1–22 with two pretarsal accessory spines. All legs practically not setose.

Ultimate legs not setose; prefemur ( Figs 14 CE) with two spinous processes of standard both structure and disposition—the larger ventral and smaller dorso-medial ones.

Variability. In syntype 1 both sternite 23 and the coxopleural process are relatively longer than in syntype 2 (cf. Figs 14E and 15F ). The ultimate legs are attached only in syntype 1.

Range. Known from the type locality only.

Remarks. S. broelemanni esulcata is known only from three specimens kept in NHMW, collected by C. Dawydoff in the Lang Biang Mountains ( Fig. 16 ). S. broelemanni esulcata is the only Vietnamese member of the former genus Dinocryptops which name has been synonymised with Scolopocryptops by Edgecombe et al. (2012: 777–778) based on both morphology and molecular analysis (this synonymy has been omitted by Bonato et al. 2016). The study of digital images of both syntypes showed that they have well developed (not rudimentary) spiracles on LBS 7 ( Figs 14D , 15E )—the only diagnostic character of former Dinocryptops . New data on the occasional presence of spiracles on LBS 7 ( Fig. 2F , 6D ) in both S. rubiginosus and S. spinicaudus reduce the difference between them and S. broelemanni esulcata . Thus, a character such as the number of spiracles must be used with much care (when used alone) to reliably identify Scolopocryptops species.

Discussion on validity of S. broelemanni esulcata .

Available data on this subspecies are scarce; the original description is very short and incomplete, lacking both illustrations and information about some diagnostic characters (number of glabrous basal antennal articles, presence/conditions of tergal sutures, pilosity of distal articles of the ultimate legs etc.).

Judging from the digital images, the NHMW specimens fit the descriptions of S. broelemanni Kraepelin, 1903 by Kraepelin (1903: 77) and Attems (1930: 256) well. In the original description of S. broelemanni esulcata Attems (1938: 338) indicated, that this subspecies is, on the whole, very similar to S. broelemanni , differing from the latter mainly in the absence (vs. presence) of the median suture on the ultimate tergite. This character is present in various groups of scolopendromorphs ( Scolopendridae , Plutoniumidae , Scolopocryptopinae ), being species-specific for the overwhelming majority of their species. Digital images of three NHMW specimens do not recognize this suture ( Fig. 15D ), so they are fully consistent with S. broelemanni esulcata . There is also a significant geographical distance between the range of S. broelemanni esulcata (Southern Vietnam), and the nominotypical subspecies described from “Chou-San” (Zhoushan, formerly romanized as Chusan, Zhejiang Province in East China). Summing up, we consider S. broelemanni esulcata Attems, 1938 to be a valid subspecies, but its taxonomic status may be changed by examining representative relevant material.

In 2005, NHMW specimens were examined by Amazons Chagas Junior, who identified them as “ Dinocryptops brolemanni (sic!) ( Kraepelin, 1903)” ( Fig. 14G ). In his PhD thesis Chagas (2008) proposed the synonymy of S. broelemanni esulcata to S. broelemanni broelemanni and considered (p. 100) both of them as representative(s) of some new (but unnamed) genus—“Gen. Nov. 1” (any nomenclatural acts proposed there have no formal status— disclaimer to dissertation). He referred to both of these subspecies as “Gen. Nov. 1 broelemanni ( Kraepelin, 1903) Comb. nova” (p. 101), but also as “ Dinocryptops broelemanni ” (pp. 25, 27 etc). Considering both subspecies to be the same form, Chagas (2008: 101) gave a composite description of the NHMW specimens as well as one specimen of Scolopocryptops broelemanni broelemanni from “ Guangdong Sheng, Nanking” (actually Nanking or Nanjing is disposed in Jiangsu Province, not in Guangdong Province) kept in National Museum of Natural History (Smithsonian Institution, Washington D. C.) (No 31325, “Cook & Loomis, 23-X-1919 ”).

This description is sufficiently detailed, but there are no data on the presence or absence of a median suture on tergite 23, a diagnostic character of S. broelemanni esulcata (it is clearly seen in the corresponding figure 27f on p. 183 that tergite 23 is devoid of this suture). In discussing the validity of S. broelemanni esulcata Chagas (2008: 138) wrote that both subspecies share common characters such as a spiracle on LBS 7 and lateral margination of the cephalic plate, but again omitted the diagnostic character mentioned above. Thus the synonymy proposed by Chagas (2008) remains in question.

Figures

FIGURES 2A–F. Scolopocryptops rubiginosus C.L. Koch, 1878; SVR.PO.020 A head and LBS 1, dorsally; B head and forcipular segment, ventrally; C LBS 6–10, dorsally; D LBS 6–10, ventrally; Rc 6738 (ZMMU) E head and forcipular segment, ventrally; Rc 6686 (ZMMU) F LBS 7, 8 (right side), laterally.

FIGURES 6A–F. Scolopocryptops spinicaudus Wood, 1862; SVR.PO.202 A LBS 23 and right ultimate leg, laterally; B LBS 21–23 and ultimate legs, ventrally; C right ultimate leg, medially; Rc 7497 (ZMMU) D LBS 7 and 8, laterally; Rc 7225 (ZMMU) E left ultimate leg, dorsally; Rc 7497 (ZMMU) F LBS 13–16, dorsally.

FIGURES 14A–G. Scolopocryptops broelemanni esulcata Attems, 1938; Syntype 1, MY 2063 (NHMW) (photo by Oliver Macek) A head + LBS 1–3, dorsally; B head and forcipular segment, ventrally; C general view, dorsally; D LBS 6–9 (left side), laterally; E LBS 22, 23, legs 21, 22 and basal articles of ultimate legs, ventrally; non-type specimen, MY 8714 (NHMW) F head + LBS 1–3, dorsally; G label of syntypes written by Chagas Junior.

FIGURES 15A–F. Scolopocryptops broelemanni esulcata Attems, 1938; Syntype 2, MY 2063 (NHMW) (photo by Oliver Macek) A head + LBS 1–3, dorsally; B head and forcipular segment, ventrally; C LBS 6–11, dorsally; D LBS 20–23, dorsally; E LBS 5–11 (right side), laterally; F LBS 21–23, ventrally.

FIGURE 16. Distribution of Scolopocryptops broelemanni esulcata Attems, 1938.