Aquattuor fasciatus ( Attems, 1896 ) Attems, 1896

Henrik Enghoff, 2016, A mountain of millipedes IV: Species of Prionopetalum Attems, 1909, from the Udzungwa Mountains, Tanzania. With notes on “ P. ” fasciatum (Attems, 1896) and a revised species key (Diplopoda, Spirostreptida, Odontopygidae), European Journal of Taxonomy 215, pp. 1-23 : 14-16

Aquattuor fasciatus ( Attems, 1896) comb. nov.

Figs 7–8

Odontopyge fasciata Attems, 1896: 40 .

Prionopetalum fasciatum – Attems 1914: 210. — Brolemann 1920: 123. — Kraus 1960: 86. — VandenSpiegel & Pierrard 2009: 152. — Enghoff et al. 2016.

Aquattuor aff. claudiahempae – Enghoff & Frederiksen 2015: 19.

Material studied

Syntypes

TANZANIA: 1 ♂ (+ one extra set of gonopods), 6 ♀♀ /juvs, Zanzibar, Kibueni ( ZMUH) .

Other material

TANZANIA: 3 ♂♂, Zanzibar, Kizimkazi , at foot of mango tree, 17 Jun. 1979, M. Stoltze leg. ( ZMUC) ; 1 ♂, Zanzibar, the sultan’s palace, 16 Jun. 1979, M. Stoltze leg. ( ZMUC) .

In addition, Dr. Nesrine Akkari has kindly examined syntypes of O. fasciata in NHMW and has placed information and images at my disposal.

Remarks

The single intact male among the examined syntypes has 53 podous rings (no apodous rings in front of the telson) and a diameter of 1.91 mm. A syntype at NHMW has the same number of rings and a diameter of 1.86 mm. The specimens from Kizimkazi are all broken, the males have maximum body diameters of 1.55–1.62 mm. The male from the sultan’s palace has 51 podous rings (no apodous rings in front of the telson) and a diameter of 1.86 mm.

The limbus ( Fig. 7 A) consists of large, rectangular, easily detached flaps, characteristic of the genus Aquattuor.

The gonopods ( Figs 7 B–F, 8) are indistinguishable from those of Aquattuor claudiahempae Enghoff & Frederiksen, 2015 (cf. their fig. 15). Noticeable special similarities include the profile of the apical palette (pa), the well-developed mesobasal lobe (mbl) of the coxal palette, and the partly micro-serrate margin of the telomere ( Fig. 7 E, arrow).

The characteristic limbus was not noted by previous authors. Attems (1896) and Brolemann (1920) did not mention the limbus at all. VandenSpiegel & Pierrard (2009: fig. 1b) illustrated the limbus, but their SEM micrograph only showed an irregularly wavy margin. The large limbus lobes were probably all broken off in the specimens examined by these authors (compare the left part of Fig. 7 A with fig 1b in VandenSpiegel & Pierrard 2009). In the syntypes from ZMUH the limbus seems to be completely worn off. However, Dr. Nesrine Akkari has kindly provided images based on the syntypes of O. fasciata in NHMW which clearly show the Aquattuor type of limbus, as well as confirm the great similarity in gonopod structure between this species and A. claudiahempae ( Fig. 8 ). The gonopods of the intact male syntype (now dissected by me) closely agree with the illustrations in Figs 7–8 . The extra set of gonopods among the syntypes very much resembles fig. 6 in Attems (1896), which is based on macerated gonopods, and they were most probably the model for this drawing.

The syntypes of fasciatus as well as the Zanzibar specimens collected by M. Stoltze are very similar to A. claudiahempae Enghoff & Frederiksen (2015), and it is possible that the latter name should be regarded as a junior synonym of A. fasciatus . However, the body diameter of the specimens from Kizimkazi is at the high end, and partly larger, compared to A. claudiahempae from Mt. Kilimanjaro. The two intact specimens from Zanzibar examined here, viz., the intact syntype and the male from the sultan’s palace, are definitely much larger. The latter specimens are more similar in size to A. cf. claudiahempae, recorded from the Morogoro Region, Kilosa District, Rubeho Mts by Enghoff & Frederiksen (2015). Attems (1896) gave the (horizontal) diameter of A. fasciatus as 2 mm. Brolemann (1920) gave 55 podous rings (= “56 segments … 1 segment apode”) and a diameter of 1.70 mm for an adult male. Whereas “ 2 mm ” is much more than any other specimen in this complex, Brolemann’s values would fit A. claudiahempae by extrapolation.

The situation is obviously complicated, and for the time being, A. fasciatus and A. claudiahempae are kept as separate species.

Figures

Fig. 7. Aquattuor fasciatus (Attems, 1896) comb. nov., specimen from Zanzibar, Kirimkazi. A. Limbus. B – C. Left gonopod. B. Anterior view. C. Posterior view. D – F. Left telomere. D. Tip, basal-anterior view. E. Subdistal part, posterior view (bold arrow points to a microserrate lobe on the margin). F. Tip, apical-posterior view. Abbreviations: mbl = mesobasal lobe of coxal palette; pa = apical palette of coxa. Scale bars: A – C = 0.1 mm; D – F = 0.01 mm.

Fig. 8. Aquattuor fasciatus (Attems, 1896) comb. nov., syntype of Odontopyge fasciata (NHMW 2672). A. Gonopods, anterior view. B. Left gonopod, posterior view. Scale bars = 0.5 mm. Photographs: N. Akkari.