Strigamia pusilla ( Seliwanoff, 1884 )
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.214898 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:56D84A4E-E8A7-4C78-8C58-F85BAA13B9DF |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5613250 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03A2607E-877E-FF95-B398-FF4FFB71FBB0 |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Strigamia pusilla ( Seliwanoff, 1884 ) |
status |
|
Strigamia pusilla ( Seliwanoff, 1884) View in CoL
Synonyms: Scolioplanes perkeo Verhoeff, 1935 ; Scolioplanes pseudopusillus Loksa, 1962 .
References for morphology: Seliwanoff 1884; Verhoeff 1935 (sub Scolioplanes perkeo View in CoL ); Loksa 1962 (sub Scolioplanes pseudopusillus ); Kaczmarek 1981 (sub Strigamia perkeo View in CoL ); Zalesskaja et al. 1982; Dányi 2006.
Taxonomic notes. It was described originally as a species of Scolioplanes View in CoL by Seliwanoff (1884), but the name was introduced previously by Seliwanoff (1881) as a “nomen nudum” because it was not accompanied by a description. Other specimens were identified later. It was first assigned to Strigamia View in CoL by Dobroruka (1960) and its validity was never questioned.
Scolioplanes perkeo View in CoL was described by Verhoeff (1935). After examination of representative specimens, Dobroruka (1955) did not find any morphological difference with respect to S. pusilla View in CoL and therefore synonymized it under the latter, acknowledging that it could be maintained at most as a subspecies. Indeed, it was repeatedly cited as a distinct subspecies S. pusilla perkeo by most subsequent authors (e.g., Kaczmarek 1981). However, as already done by Pereira (2009), we confirm here S. perkeo View in CoL as a synonym of S. pusillus because no evidence exists for differences in morphology. Moreover, the male holotype of S. perkeo View in CoL and the two syntypes of S. pusillus were described as differing only in the number of legs (33 pairs in the male S. perkeo View in CoL , 35 in the male S. pusillus and 37 in the female S. pusillus ) and the number of coxal pores (lower in S. perkeo View in CoL , which is however also smaller than the syntypes of S. pusillus ). Both putative differences are very slight and within the expected interindividual variation. It is worth noting that Verhoeff (1935) introduced S. perkeo View in CoL without mentioning its distinction with respect to S. pusilla View in CoL .
Scolioplanes pseudopusillus was described by Loksa (1962), and no other specimens have been recorded since. The species was cited rarely and eventually synonymized under S. pusillus by Zalesskaja et al. (1982). We agree with the synonymy because Loksa (1962) acknowledged explicitly that S. pseudopusillus could be distinguished from S. pusillus only for the relatively higher number of ventral pores, however the number of the latter is well known to increase with individual growth in Strigamia ( Horneland & Meidell 2009) View in CoL and is variable between specimens.
Distribution: from Sudetes, Carpathians and Caucasus, to central Siberia and Mongolia.
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 |
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
Strigamia pusilla ( Seliwanoff, 1884 )
Bonato, Lucio, Dányi, László, Socci, Antonio Augusto & Minelli, Alessandro 2012 |
Strigamia (
Horneland & Meidell 2009 |