Heteromurus major (Moniez, 1889)

Bendjaballah, Mohamed, Zoughailech, Abdelmalek, Brahim-Bounab, Hayette, Hamra-Kroua, Salah, Bedos, Anne & Deharveng, Louis, 2018, Annotated checklist of the springtails (Hexapoda: Collembola) of the Collo massif, northeastern Algeria, Zoosystema 40 (16), pp. 389-414 : 406-407

Heteromurus major (Moniez, 1889) ( Fig. 18 )

Templetonia major Moniez, 1889: 26 .

Heteromurus major – Börner 1901: 78.

CITATION FROM ALGERIA OUTSIDE COLLO. — Handschin (1928: 7); Cassagnau (1963: 198); Thibaud & Massoud (1980: 518); HamraKroua & Allatou (2003: 23); Ait-Mouloud et al. (2007: 151); HamraKroua & Cancela da Fonseca (2009: 36); Baquero et al. (2009: 68).

DISTRIBUTION. — Euro-Mediterranean region, with possible introductions elsewhere (Mari-Mutt 1980).

REMARK

Very frequent in our samples.

Heteromurus tetrophthalmus Börner, 1903 ( Fig. 19 )

Heteromurus tetrophthalmus Börner, 1903: 156 .

CITATIONS FROM ALGERIA OUTSIDE COLLO. — Denis (1937: 87) cites the species but it is unclear if the specimens he examined came from Algeria. It was later cited as Heteromurus tetrophtalmus (misspelled) in Stomp (1974: 114; 1983: 196); Thibaud & Massoud (1980: 518). The specimens recorded as Heteromurus nitidus (Templeton, 1835) in various papers probably correspond also to this species: Handschin (1926: 125); Thibaud & Massoud (1980: 518); Hamra-Kroua & Allatou (2003: 23); Ait-Mouloud et al. (2007: 151); Baquero et al. (2009: 68).

DISTRIBUTION. — Mediterranean region ( Gisin 1960).

REMARK

This species of Collo, frequent in our samples, is provisionally assigned to H. tetrophthalmus Börner, 1903 described from Italy. Denis (1937) mentioned H. tetrophthalmus while describing H. peyerimhoffi Denis, 1937 from Djurdjura in Algeria, but it is unclear if the exemplars were from Algeria or other Mediterranean country. It was cited from Algeria by Stomp (1974), but subsequently synonymized with H. nitidus (Templeton, 1835) by Mari-Mutt (1980). It continued to be recognized in several papers, but the proposed synonymy has never been discussed on modern standards. According to Mari-Hutt (1980), the only difference between the two species if the presence of an unguicular tooth in H. nitidus (absent in H. tetrophthalmus ). Re-examining the types of H. tetrophthalmus , he did not find any difference, and proposed therefore to synonymize the two species. In fact, Mari-Mutt working on slide specimens, missed a much more evident character, the coloration of the body. Having seen a very large number of H. nitidus from Europe, we can confirm that the eyes in adults are not black but reddish to brown, and the body is always clearly spotted with reddish-orange pigments as stated in the original description (“[…] eyes reddish brown. Thoracic and abdominal rings pale, with innumerable reddish brown streaks and spots […]”). In contrast, H. tetrophthalmus described by Börner (1903) is pale yellowish without such darker spots (“[…] Farbe ganz weissgelb, ohne braunes Pigment […]”). All Heteromurus with 2+ 2 eyes we have seen from Collo (and other places in Algeria) are always white or pale yellowish like H. tetrophthalmus . Eye color is not described in the original description, but they are black in all specimens we have seen from Collo. On this basis and pending a redescription of H. tetrophthalmus from its type localities in Italy, we therefore assign the Collo specimens to this species.

Figures

FIG. 18. — Heteromurus major (Moniez, 1889). Body size: 2.0 mm.

FIG. 19. — Heteromurus tetrophthalmus Börner, 1903. Body size: 1.5 mm.