Strigamia engadina ( Verhoeff, 1935 )

Bonato, Lucio, Dányi, László, Socci, Antonio Augusto & Minelli, Alessandro, 2012, Species diversity of Strigamia Gray, 1843 (Chilopoda: Linotaeniidae): a preliminary synthesis, Zootaxa 3593, pp. 1-39 : 13

Strigamia engadina ( Verhoeff, 1935)

Synonyms: Scolioplanes mendelanus Verhoeff, 1935 ; Scolioplanes engadinus rodnaensis Verhoeff, 1935 .

References for morphology: Verhoeff 1935 (also sub Scolioplanes mendelanus and Scolioplanes engadinus rodnaensis ); Stoev 2002.

Taxonomic notes. Described originally as a species of Scolioplanes , together with the two subspecies S. engadinus banaticus and S. engadinus rodnaensis , it was assigned to Strigamia by Matic & Darabantu (1968). It was cited repeatedly as valid by recent authors, who assigned other specimens to S. engadina , however following different criteria to identify the species (e.g.: Verhoeff 1935; Matic 1972; Stoev 2002). Conversely, the subspecies banaticus and rodnaensis were cited rarely by subsequent authors and ignored since Matic (1972), who listed both of them as synonyms of S. engadina . However, based on their original descriptions, only rodnaensis can be recognized as conspecific with S. engadina , whereas banaticus actually corresponds to S. acuminata (see above under S. acuminata ). Also the range of variation in the segment number reported by some authors (e.g., Matic & Darabantu 1968; Matic 1972; Kaczmarek 1979) suggests that specimens of S. acuminata have been probably misidentified sometimes as S. engadina .

Scolioplanes mendelanus was described by Verhoeff (1935) in the same publication in which he described S. engadinus . The two nominal taxa were considered identical by Foddai et al. (1995), who adopted S. engadina as the valid name for the species (I.C.Z.N. 1999: art. 24.2). We confirm the synonymy between the two species, because their original descriptions are fully consistent in all characters recognized of taxonomic value; the only differences recorded by Verhoeff (1935) between the holotype of S. mendelanus and the two syntypes of S. engadinus are minor differences expected to be within intraspecific variation, regarding the shape of the basal denticle of the forcipular tarsungulum, the ultimate metasternite, the distal article of the ultimate leg, and the number and size of the coxal pores. It is also worth noting that the type localities of the two species are close to each other (see Appendix 2).

Distribution: Alps, Carpathians and Dinarides. Published records from Pyrenees, central Appennines and other regions in the Balkan peninsula need confirmation, because they are possibly based on misidentified specimens of S. acuminata or S. transsilvanica (see under “Taxonomic notes”).