Megaphyllum tauricum (Attems, 1907)
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.3741.1.2 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:BF5EA9B8-C6F4-448A-BEF9-1976AB4EC308 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6151746 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03C887D3-FFD8-FF95-FF34-99B1FE27AC51 |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Megaphyllum tauricum (Attems, 1907) |
status |
|
Megaphyllum tauricum (Attems, 1907) View in CoL
Figs 19a–f View FIGURES 19 a – f
Brachyiulus tauricus Attems, 1907: 13 –14, Figs 11–14 View FIGURES 11 a – g View FIGURES 12 a – g View FIGURES 13 a – f View FIGURES 14 a – g .
Chromatoiulus tauricus: Attems 1927: 223 , 236, Figs 318–320. Chromatoiulus (Chromatoiulus) tauricus: Attems 1940: 306 . Megaphyllum tauricum: Golovatch 1990: 362 .
Material examined. Ukraine: Inv. No. 3134, 1♂, 3♀, Syntypen, Krim, Alupka, leg. Stuxberg 1897, don. Jägerskiöd, Museum Göteborg (NHMW); ZMB 8652, 1♂, Krim [det. Verhoeff?] (MNB).
Distribution. Ukraine: Krimean Peninsula: Alupka, Jalta [Yalta], Gursuff (today: Gurzuf), “Dschatyr Dagh” [Mt. Chatyr-Dagh] (type localities).
Diagnosis. Differs from the most similar species M. rhodopinum by the wider, apically more rounded posterior opisthomere process (pp) ( Figs 19a–b, 19d View FIGURES 19 a – f ), and by the somewhat more tapering promere with a longitudinal indentation (i) ( Figs 19a, 19c View FIGURES 19 a – f ).
Promeres (P) ( Figs 19a–c View FIGURES 19 a – f ) posterolaterally with a significant longitudinal indentation (i); lateral margins of each promere parallel to each other. Opisthomere’s ( Figs 19a–b, 19d View FIGURES 19 a – f ) posterior process (pp) as long as solenomere. Anterior solenomere process (asp) much longer than posterior process (psp). Both sexes seem to be uniformly brown like M. rhodopinum . Body length and height: males: 28.6–30.9mm, 2.2mm. Females were not measured in the present study, but their height according to Attems (1907): 3.5mm.
Remarks. Attems (1927) mistook M. sjaelandicum for M. tauricum , the latter described by him in 1907. This misidentification was commented on by Lohmander (1936) who noticed differences between the original description of M. tauricum and its later treatment in Attems’ (1927) paper. We investigated both Attems’ type material and the material published in 1927, supplemented with material from MNB, probably identified by Verhoeff, judging by the handwriting on the labels. M. tauricum is a valid species, and in fact, the sample cited by Attems (1927) consists of M. sjaelandicum individuals.
Female vulva unknown.
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |