Scoterpes nudus Chamberlin, 2010

Shear, William A., 2010, 2385, Zootaxa 2385, pp. 1-62 : 55-56

Scoterpes nudus Chamberlin , new status

Figs. 82, Map 6

Scoterpes austrinus nudus Chamberlin 1946, p. 52 . Shear, 1972, p. 279. Hoffman 2000, p. 235.

Types: Male holotype from Saltpetre Cave [Kingston Saltpetre Cave], 4 mi S Kingston, Bartow Co., Georgia; whereabouts unknown .

Diagnosis; The gonopods of S. nudus are very similar to those of S. austrinus , but differ in the thinner, shorter mesal angiocoxites and the presence of fine cuticular teeth on the lateral angiocoxites.

Etymology: The name refers to Chamberlin’s (1946) observation of the lack of a claw on the ninth leg of the holotype. The presence of a claw on Loomis’ (1943) illustration of the ninth leg of austrinus represents an anomalous specimen; the claw is generally absent in both species.

Description of male from Kingston Saltpetre Cave; Length, 10.2 mm, width, 0.98 mm. Nonsexual characters as described for genus. Gonopods ( Fig. 82) with completely fused coxosternum; angiocoxal setal groups well-separated, distal group of 4–5 setae. Mesal angiocoxal branch obviously shorter than lateral, thin and smoothly acuminate. Lateral branch lamellate, T-shaped, with prominent microteeth laterally. Fimbriate branch moderately prominent. Ninth legs typical of genus.

Female from Kingston Saltpetere Cave : Length, 11.0 mm, width 1.0 mm. Nonsexual characters as in male .

Distribution (Map 6): All specimens FSCA. Each of the records below is supported by at least one male specimen. GEORGIA: Bartow Co. Kingston Saltpetre Cave, 4 mi S Kingston, 29 December 1955, T. C. Barr; 13 June 1967, J. Holsinger et al. . Polk Co. Deaton’s Cave, 29 September 1967, “Iles;” River Cave, 20 February 1954, W. H. Gross; White River Cave, 3 mi. NE Rockmart, 13 June 1967, J. Holsinger.

Notes: This species was originally described by Chamberlin (1946) as a subspecies of S. austrinus , based only on the lack of a claw on the ninth leg in nudus . This is a trivial character, since the claw is missing in most specimens of male Scoterpes ; Loomis’ 1943 illustration happened to be of a specimen of austrinus that had a vestigial claw. In 1972, I speculated that the subspecific designation might not be valid; Hoffman (2000) then placed nudus in the synonymy of austrinus , citing my mention of a specimen of typical austrinus from White River Cave in Floyd County. Unfortunately we were both wrong; White River Cave is actually in Bartow County, but in any case is south of the Oostanaula River and therefore geographically proves nothing about the identity of nudus . Distributional data aside from type localities was not available in 1971 or in 2000. I stated that I had not compared my specimens to the type of nudus , and did not formalize the synonymy, but my illustrations (1972: figs. 518–520) clearly depict nudus because of the microteeth on the lateral or ectal coxite; that distinction is made for the first time here. The two species are obviously very close, and subspecies designation for nudus may still prove to be correct if intermediate populations are found between the compact distributions now known for the two nominal species. At present, since both populations are distinct morphologically and geographically, regarding them both as full species best fits the evidence. Clearly Chamberlin (1946) did not have a modern view of the category subspecies, which at the time he wrote was still inextricably confused with the concept of “variety.” Solving the status of the two populations would be a nice little problem for a local naturalist. For additional information, see the Notes on S. austrinus , immediately above.