Paracryptops inexpectus Chamberlin, 1914

Junior, Amazonas Chagas & Shelley, Rowland M., 2004, Rediscovery and redescription of the centipede Paracryptops inexpectus Chamberlin, 1914, with an account of the genus (Scolopendromorpha: Cryptopidae: Cryptopinae), Zootaxa 475, pp. 1-8 : 5-7

Paracryptops inexpectus Chamberlin, 1914

Figs. 2­7.

Paracryptops inexpectus Chamberlin, 1914:158 . Attems, 1930:246. Bücherl, 1939:240; 1941:74; 1974:123.

Type specimen. Holotype ( MCZ) taken by an unknown inspector on an unknown date prior to 1914 in Washington, D.C., USA, in the soil of a potted plant shipped from Guyana. Chamberlin (1914) does not say where the specimen came from in Guyana, and no locality is provided on the slide label of the holotype. Schileyko (2002) stated that the locality is “Dunoon,” a town on the Demerara River about 30 mi (48 km) south of Georgetown, but this is without basis and is disregarded.

Diagnosis. Cephalic plate longer than wide, with two short, incomplete sulci arising from caudal margin, overlain by 1st tergite. Anterior coxosternal margin with two narrowly segregated, rounded lobes. 3rd–20th tergites with complete paramedian sulci; 4th– 19th with rounded, median, longitudinal elevations; 4th–20th with lateral depressions. 2nd– 19th sternites with procurved transverse depressions bissected in midlines by short, longitudinal impressions. Tibiae and tarsi of legs 1­20 without spurs. Tibiae of ultimate legs with a row of four ventral spurs apiece; each first tarsus with one ventral spur.

Description. Length 16 mm. Preserved body color light orange, cephalic plate darker orange, legs and antennae light yellow. Cephalic plate: hairs not detected, longer than wide, sides sublinear, with two short, incomplete, paramedian sulci arising from caudal margin, latter overlain slightly by 1st tergite (Fig. 2). Antennae: reaching back to segment 3, with 17 antennomeres, first eight sparsely hirsute with scattered longer hairs, remaining articles with dense, fine pubescence. Coxosternum: hairs not detected, without sulci; anterior margin with two short, rounded, narrowly segregated lobes (Fig. 3). Forcipules: broad basally and set well apart, without trochanteroprefemoral processes, narrowing slightly distad; claws distinctly narrower, apices separated in situ by nearly combined widths of coxosternal lobes (Fig. 3). Tergites: smooth and glossy, hairs not detected. 1st

tergite without sulci. 2nd tergite with incomplete paramedian sulci extending from midlength to caudal margin. 3rd–20th tergites with complete paramedian sulci; 4th–19th with low, rounded, median longitudinal elevations; 4th–20th with incomplete lateral depressions arising short of anterior margins, terminating before caudal margins (Fig. 4). Tergites 5­20 with pretergites (fig. 4), more evident on 14th–19th segments. Ultimate tergite slightly shorter than preceding, with lateral carinae and slight median longitudinal depression; caudal margin extended in midline (Fig. 4). Sternites: smooth and glabrous; 2nd­19th sternites with strong transverse and short median depressions, not forming clear cruciform configurations (Fig. 5). Ultimate sternite shorter than preceding, without depressions; caudal margin sublinear (Fig. 6). Coxopleura: short, without spines (Fig. 6). Leg pairs 1­20: relatively long. Tibiae and tarsi without spurs, with long, sparse, stiff bristles; tarsi of legs 1­19 undivided, longer than tibiae. Ultimate legs (Fig. 7): prefemora and femora without spines but with scattered, long bristles. Tibiae with bristles laterad, each ventral surface with a row of four spines curving caudad distally. First tarsi short, with two lateral bristles and one spine each. Second tarsi without spurs, ventral surfaces with rounded lobes proximad.

FIGURES 2–7. Paracryptops inexpectus . Figs. 3 and 6–7 are drawn from the holotype; figs. 2 and 4–5 derive from a Dominican specimen. 2, cephalic plate, basal antennomeres, and 1st tergite, dorsal view. 3, coxosternum and forcipules, ventral view. 4, tergites 17–21, dorsal view. 5, sternites 16 & 17, ventral view. 6, ultimate sternite and coxopleura, ventral view. 7, prefemur, femur, tibia, 1st and 2nd tarsi, and claw of ultimate leg, lateral view. F, femur; PF, prefemur; TI, tibia; T1, 1st tarsus; T2, 2nd tarsus. Scale line = 1.0 mm for figs. 2 and 5; 0.75 mm for figs. 3–4 and 6–7.

Ecology. No habitat information is available for P. inexpectus . As the holotype was discovered in a potted plant, we presume it was found in soil, a likely place to find a smallbodied, weakly sclerotized centipede.

Distribution. Occurring at an unknown location in Guyana, and the following site in the Lesser Antilles: DOMINICA, Roseau, 12 June 1958, S. Lazel (NMNH­ 2 specimens). New Country Record.

Remarks. In contrast to the hirsute structures in P. i n d i c u s and P. spinosus ( Silvestri 1924, Jangi and Dass 1978), the cephalic plate, coxosternum, and forcipules of the three available specimens of P. i n e x p e c t u s are essentially glabrous. As none of the individuals is in particularly good condition, it is possible that more hairs were present and have fallen off. If there truly are no hairs in P. inexpectus , the absence would seem to be diagnostic for the species. Based on Pocock’s (1894) account and figures, P. inexpectus does not appear to be very different from P. weberi aside from the absence of hairs, and it bears repeating that the latter was intercepted in quarantine in Hawaii, showing that it can be transported in this manner. We think that P. inexpectus may be a junior synonym of P. w e b e r i and represent an introduction into the New World that subsequently was carried to the United States and intercepted at Washington.

Jangi and Dass (1978) suggested that the number of spines on the tibiae and first tarsi of the ultimate legs constitute species­level characters. However, they did not check all five component species, and they noted that the number of tibial spines in P. spinosus varies with age. The taxonomic value of these characters is thus unknown, and further study is needed.