Eupolybothrus (E.) fasciatus (Newport)

E. H. Eason, 1970, A redescription of the species of Eupolybothrus Verhoeff s. str. preserved in the British Museum (Natural History) and the Hope departement of Zoology Oxford (Chilopoda Lithobiomorpha), Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Zoology 19, pp. 289-310 : 291-295

Eupolybothrus (E.) fasciatus (Newport)

Figs. 1 to 3

Lithiobius fasciatus Newport, 1844 , p. 365.

Lithobius (Polybothrus) fasciatus bosniensis : Verhoeff, 1900, p. 162.

not Lithobius fasciatus Muralewitsch, 1929 , p. 102.

MATERIAL EXAMINED. Three dried specimens in a fair state of preservation, all males, are present in the Newport Collection of Myriapoda in the Hope Department of Zoology, Oxford. I have designated these specimens A, B and C. Specimen A, 23 mm long, is pinned through the 5th tergite and lacks the 14th and 15th legs; it bears a label " Lithobius fasciatus Newp. " but no indication of locality. Specimens B and C, though unlabelled, are arranged in the cabinet immediately on either side of specimen A. Specimen B, 23 mm long, is pinned through the 7th tergite and has the 14th and 15th legs intact on the right side only. Specimen C, 22 mm long, is pinned through the 6th tergite and lacks the 14th and 15th legs.

Although much of the original description of this species is based on specimens up to 32 mm long with 9+9 prosternal teeth, Newport (1844) states that his material was deposited in the Hope Museum and careful comparison of the writing on the label attached to specimen A with an example of Newport’s handwriting in the Sherborne Collection of Manuscripts in the British Museum (Natural History) leaves little doubt that the label is, in fact, in Newport’s hand. These three specimens, therefore, seem to be the only survivors of the syntypical series. Specimen A, bearing the label, should be regarded as the lectotype but we must depend for the characters of the 14th and 15th legs on specimen B.

The following specimens, preserved in spirit, are present in the Koch Collection of Arachnida and Myriapoda in the British Museum (Natural History) and are labelled " grossipes, Rom " in L. Koch’s hand (Reg. no. 13.6.18.301-302) :

A male 22 mm long lacking the 14th and 15th legs and a female 23 mm long.

The following specimens, preserved in spirit, are present in the Verhoeff Collection of Myriapoda in the British Museum (Natural History) and are labelled " Lithobius fasciatus bosniensis Latz. " “Bosnia” (Reg. no. 03.8.25.41-46 ):

A well-preserved male 27 mm long, a mutilated male 24 mm long lacking most of the legs and four females 23 to 26 mm long.

It seems reasonable to assume that these specimens were among those on which Verhoeff (1900: 162) based his records of L. fasciatus bosniensis from Bosnia ( Yugoslavia ).

DIAGNOSIS or ADULT. Length 22 to 32 mm. Antennae of 36 to 42 articles. Glandular pores of 15th leg concentrated on internal aspects of femur, tibia, tarsus and metatarsus only. 15th metatarsal general setae up to three-quarters the diameter of the article in length. 15th metatarsal seriate setae present. Basal pit of male 15th femur extensive and deep. Internal dorsal sulcus of male 15th femur not extending to margin of pore-free area which bears a prominent globular swelling. No coxolateral spines.

DESCRIPTION OF ADULT. Length: present specimens from 22 to 27 mm (Newport gives 1 1/4 inches = 32 mm); 15th legs about half body-length. Colour: Newport’s dried specimens vary from pale (specimen A) to dark (specimens B and C) brown; those preserved in spirit are intermediate in colour with a trace of a darker dorsal median band. Antennae: about half body-length; of 36 to 42 articles, the distal 12 or so often elongate. Ocelli: 1+4, 5, 4, 1; 1+4, 3, 4, 3; 1+4, 4, 5, 4, 3 etc.; those of the superior row horizontally oval, widely spaced and larger than those of the other rows; posterior superior ocellus almost as large as isolated posterior ocellus. Prosternum: with 6+6 to 9+9 small teeth: lateral spines variable in structure and position, usually peg-like but sometimes dentiform or setiform and often of different structure on either side of the same individual, usually placed well lateral to the external teeth but sometimes immediately postero-lateral or rarely postero-medial. A specimen from Rome has 10+7 teeth, possibly due to abnormal development. Tergites: posterior borders of large tergites slightly emarginate; posterior angles of T.5 rounded, those of T.8 blunt without angulation, those of T.10 somewhat angulated, those of T.12 and 14 distinctly angulated but without projections; posterior angles of T.4 rounded without trace of projections; posterior projections on T.6 rounded, those on T.7 short and broad, those on T.9, 11 and 13 well-developed with internal borders very slightly sinuous; posterior border of intermediate tergite sinuous in male, with rounded or trapezoidal emargination in female. Coxal pores: from 15 in smaller specimens to 35 in larger specimens, in about four rows on each of the 12th to 15th coxae. Glamlalar pores of 15th legs (Fig. 1): concentrated on internal aspects only of femur, tibia, tarsus and metatarsus. On the femur the pores are limited by the internal dorsal sulcus; on the prefemur they are sparse as figured by Verhoeff (1937: 172, fig. 1) for Polybothrus apenninigenus .

Chaetotaxy of 14th and 15th legs

General setae: on the metatarsus numerous, up to three-quarters the diameter of the article in length (Fig. 2); of much the same density and absolute length on the tarsus, about a quarter the diameter of the article in length; on the tibia and femur (Fig. 1) sparser and rather shorter; on the prefemur rather denser, longer and stouter than on tibia or femur, particularly along the Ventral aspect of the article. Seriate setae: a single row on the distal half to three-quarters of the 15th metatarsus (Fig. 2), a well-defined external row and a rather sparse internal row along the length of the 14th metatarsus and a single row on the distal half to three-quarters of the 14th tarsus (Fig. 3). Spinous setae: on the 14th tarsus the distal seriate seta and the ventral external seta (VaTa) are of much the same size, rather stouter than the other seriate setae, while the Ventral internal seta (VpTa) is much stouter (Fig. 3). Setae of tuft (males): long and numerous in Newport’s specimen B (Fig. 1); absent in Verhoeff’s specimen.

Sculpturing of male 15th legs (Fig. 1)

These characters are taken from the right leg of Newport’s specimen B and both legs of Verhoeff’s larger male 2 prefemur with internal dorsal sulcus distinct on right leg of Verhoeff’s specimen only, otherwise faint, no external sulcus; basal femoral pit deep and extensive, occupying about three-quarters the diameter of the base of femur, rather sharply attenuated distally, continuous with the fairly broad internal femoral sulcus which becomes gradually shallower distally to disappear before reaching the margin of the pore-free area; external femoral sulcus absent; pore-free area occupying distal one third of the internal aspect of femur, bearing a prominent globular swelling on which the general setae are of the same structure as those on the rest of the shaft but a little denser; on the right leg of Verhoeff’s specimen is a well-circumscribed slightly raised oblong fine pore-sieve at the centre of the globular swelling about a quarter the diameter of the distal end of the femur, bearing a rather ill-defined tuft of minute setae; on the left leg of the same specimen only a small faint group of fine pores can be seen on the surface of the globular swelling whereas in Newport’s specimen B this character was not confirmed, possibly being obscured by the slight shrivelling of the integument which tends to occur in dried material.

Sculpturing of male 14th legs

Internal and external dorsal sulci distinct on both prefemur and femur.

Spinulation

15 VpF may be absent; no coxolateral spines; a well-developed 15th accessory apical claw.

Genitalia

Male: posterior border of genital sternite with a median notch and marginal setae showing no obvious differentiation; gonopods long and slender, basal article less than half the length of distal article. Female: two cylindro-conical spurs on each gonopod, separated from one another at their insertion by rather more than their own diameter; claw of gonopod sharp, without denticles; dorso-lateral setae of gonopod short, in an irregular band of about five setae on the first article, about twelve on the second and none on the terminal article.

DISCUSSION. Latzel (1880) suspected Lithobius fasciatus Newport of being the same as Lithobius grossipes C. L. Koch and in his paper on Ligurian centipedes Pocock (1890), after examining the type material of L. fasciatus in the Hope Museum, says definitely that these two species are identical. Ever since, L. fasciatus has been regarded as the senior synonym of L. grossipes . But it is now clear that Newport’s specimens are distinct, not only from the holotype of L. grossipes and most of the other specimens in the Koch Collection assigned by L. Koch to this species, but also from the Ligurian specimens on which Pocock presumably based his conclusion (see p. 297).

Newport (1844) gives Florence and Naples as the type localities of L. fasciatus , mentioning that specimens from Naples are usually of a much lighter colour than those from Florence. If we assume that specimen A, which is markedly paler than either B or C, comes from Naples and that specimens B and C come from Florence it is just possible, since the two species are very hard to separate without reference to the structure of their 15th legs, that specimen A belongs to Eupolybothrus grossipes and that Pocock examined it before its 15th legs were lost, omitted to examine specimens B and C, and came to the correct conclusion. But Newport states that specimens from the two localities agree with one another precisely except in their colour and he describes the "metatarsal joints" of the posterior legs as "very hairy" which he would hardly have done had his specimens included mature examples of E. grossipes . It therefore seems reasonable to regard Newport’s three specimens as conspecific.

The difference between these specimens and those referred by Verhoeff to L. fasciatus bosniensis seems only to be due to individual variation. Colour is altogether unreliable as a taxonomic character and, in any case, dried specimens and those preserved in spirit are not comparable with one another in this respect. The prominent tuft of setae on the internal basal angle of the male 15th femur, absent in Verhoeff’s specimen, was noted by Latzel (1888) in his original description of bosniensis but Attems (1902) remarks on its absence in some specimens. It seems that these setae, which are absent from all but the fully mature examples of E. grossipes and E. litoralis that I have examined, may fail to appear even in the adult.

There is therefore little doubt that Verhoeff’s specimens are indeed identical with L. grossipes var. bosniensis Latzel (1888) and this form, originally recorded from a number of localities in Bosnia and Hercegovina, will almost certainly prove to be identical with E. fasciatus and was only named because Latzel was unfamiliar with Newport’s species. The same may be said of L. fasciatus var. apenninigenus Brolemann (1894) , originally recorded from Borgotaro in the northern Apennines, which agrees with Latzel’s rather scanty original description and only differs from Attems (1902) expanded redescription of bosniensis in quite unimportant characters. It is also safe to assume that Verhoeff (1934 and 1937) had specimens of E. fasciatus before him when he wrote his descriptions of Polybothrus apenninigenus .

The labelling of specimens of E. fasciatus as “grossipes” by L. Koch is hardly surprising as the characters separating these two species are unlikely to have attracted his attention.