Harpolithobius dollfusi ( Verhoeff, 1901 ) Verhoeff, 1901

Stoev, Pavel, 2005, On the identity of some poorly known lithobiid centipedes described by Karl Verhoeff (Chilopoda: Lithobiomorpha), Zootaxa 796, pp. 1-12 : 2-4

Harpolithobius dollfusi ( Verhoeff, 1901) comb. n.

Figs 1–4 , 14

Lithobius Dollfusi Verhoeff, 1901: 173 .

Lithobius dolfusi [sic!]: Matic, 1964: 188; 1966: 252.

Lithobius dollfusi: Moritz & Fischer, 1979: 318 .

Harpolithobius intermedius Matic, 1958: 91 , Figs 1–3 syn. n.; 1961a: 166; 1961b: 81–84, Figs 20– 22; 1966: 90, Fig. 35a–c.

Harpolithobius intermedius transsylvanicus Matic, 1958: 93 syn. n.

Harpolithobius spinipes intermedius: Dobroruka, 1960: 200 .

Harpolithobius cf. intermedius: Deltshev et al., 2000: 535 .

Harpolithobius cf. intermedius: Stoev, 2002: 55 .

Harpolithobius intermedius: Ilie, 2003a: 89 ; 2003b: 132.

Harpolithobius cf. intermedius: Ilie et al., 2003: 93 .

Material examined: female syntype mounted on a slide No. 249, Coll. Verhoeff, labelled “ Rumänien, ZMB No 13 529”; lectotype by present designation. The fate of the other syntypes is unknown, so herein I designate as lectotype the only available and comparatively well­preserved specimen.

Verhoeff (1901) described Lithobius dollfusi from Laculeţe and Azuga, Romania. The taxonomic status of the species has never been re­considered, and subsequent researchers never found it. L. dollfusi was even missed in Verhoeff’s (1937) sophisticated key to the species of the genus Lithobius , an argument used by Matic (1964, 1966) to declare it, mistakenly, as a “nomen nudum”! The examined material, though broken into pieces and mounted on a permanent microscope slide, allowed observation of some important characters revealing its identity. Immediately evident is the fact that L. dollfusi belongs to the genus Harpolithobius Verhoeff, 1904 , which at the time of the original species description had not yet been established. The genus Harpolithobius is characterized by a number of synapomorphies, e.g. prosternal edge not incised medially, porodonts always thickened; male posterior legs with modifications, etc., and is hitherto known to comprise more than 30 species and subspecies. The genus range includes Asia Minor, the Caucasus, the Balkans, the Carpathians, and the Alps, with one species, H. anodus (Latzel, 1880) , reaching the Ligurian Apennines to the west ( Zapparoli, 2003). It has never been an object of comprehensive revision, and many taxa, especially from the Balkans and Asia Minor, still await a proper re­description. So far, eight species are known from Romania, four of which occur exclusively within the country boundaries (cf. Matic, 1966). One of these is Harpolithobius intermedius (including its junior synonym H. intermedius transsylvanicus ) described from Valea Ord ă ncuŞei (Ord ă ncuŞei Valley), the Apuseni Mts. and Torda (= Turzii) Gorge, Romania ( Matic, 1958). It was downgraded to a subspecies of H. spinipes Folkmanova, 1958 by Dobroruka (1960), but Matic (1961a) resurrected its full species rank and added new data on its morphology ( Matic, 1961b). According to Matic (1961a) H. spinipes is well distinguished from H. intermedius by the tripartite female gonopodial claw (vs. single), shorter and thicker gonopodial spurs, first leg­pair richer in ventral spines and having unmodified tibiae (vs. single ventral spine and enlarged tibiae), etc.

Recently, H. intermedius was recorded also from the Anina Mts., Banat ( Ilie, 2003a, Ilie et al., 2003) and the region of CloŞani, Oltenia ( Ilie, 2003b). Stoev (in Deltshev et al., 2000) mentioned it for the Central Stara Planina Mts., Bulgaria (record repeated in Stoev, 2002) without confidence about its identification. H. intermedius was distinguished from the other congeners by a number of characters, the most striking being the presence of a single female gonopodial claw. Though apparent, Matic failed to mention its close resemblance to L. dollfusi . A direct comparison between the two species, which is based on both the literature (cf. Verhoeff, 1901; Matic, 1958, 1961a, b, 1966) and original data from the lectotype, is given below in Table 1 . Data deriving from the personal examination of Victoria Ilie (in litt.) of both the types of H. intermedius in the Zoological Museum, Cluj and his own material were also taken into account. The table shows that the main taxonomic characters of the two species overlap considerably, which is a reason to propose the following new synonymy and combination: Harpolithobius dollfusi ( Verhoeff, 1901) comb. n. = H. intermedius Matic, 1958 syn. n.

General distribution. Romania: Apuseni Mts., Torda Gorge, Anina Mts., CloŞani; Bulgaria?: Central Stara Planina Mts.

a There are not prosternal teeth in the examined syntype although in the original description Verhoeff (1901) reported 2+2 teeth as characterizing the species. It could be due to an individual variation, which is known also in other congeners, namely H. anodus (Latzel, 1882) (cf. Eason, 1982).

Figures

FIGURES 1 – 4. Harpolithobius dollfusi (Verhoeff, 1901): 1 – head, dorsal view; 2 – maxillipede, ventral view; 3 – coxa, ventro­lateral view; 4 – female gonopods, ventral view. Scale bars: 1 mm (Figs 1 – 2), 0.5 mm (Fig. 4).

FIGURES 14 – 16: 14 – H. dollfusi, lectotype; 15 – L. lapadensis, lectotype; 16 – L. karamani, paralectotype.

Tables

TABLE 1. A morphological comparison between H. dollfusi and H. intermedius.

Characters	H. dollfusi	H. intermedius
Body size	16 mm	18–21 mm
Number of antennal articles	45–48	(33) 44–49 (57)
Number of ocelli	15–17	(14) 17–21
Teeth on maxillipede coxosternum	2+2a	2+2
Coxal pores	6, 6, 7, 6	6, 6, 7, 5 (6)
Ventral spinulation of 15th leg­pair	0, 1, 3, 3, 1	0, 1, 3, 3, 1
Female gonopodial spurs	2+2 moderately long	2+2 moderately long
Female gonopodial claw	Simple	Simple