Clinopodes rodnaensis ( Verhoeff, 1938 )

Bonato, Lucio, Iorio, Étienne & Minelli, Alessandro, 2011, The centipede genus Clinopodes C. L. Koch, 1847 (Chilopoda, Geophilomorpha, Geophilidae): reassessment of species diversity and distribution, with a new species from the Maritime Alps (France), Zoosystema 33 (2), pp. 175-205 : 191

Clinopodes rodnaensis ( Verhoeff, 1938)

TYPE MATERIAL AND TYPE LOCALITIES. — Unknown number of ♀♀ and juveniles, syntypes ; from “Valea Vinului (bei Rodna)” (= Valea Vinului [ Romania]), “Bistritz” (= Bistrita [ Romania]), “Kronstadt” (= Brasov [ Romania]), “Schässburg” (= Sighisoara [ Romania]), and “Bükkgebirge” (= Bükk [ Hungary]) ( Verhoeff 1938) .

SYNONYMS. — None.

NOMINAL SUBSPECIES. — None.

MAIN REFERENCES. — Verhoeff 1938: 340 (in key), 342 (original description, as Geophilus rodnaensis ); Attems 1947: 120 (in key); Dărăbanţu & Matic 1969: 102 (in key); Matic 1972a: 76 (in key); 88 (redescription).

MATERIAL EXAMINED. — Romania. Casa de Piatra, Bihor Mountains, 10.VIII.2007 G. Gardini & R. Rizzerio lg, 1 ♀ (32 mm long, 61 leg pairs) (coll. MB).

DIAGNOSIS. — A Clinopodes species up to c. 4 cm long; 57-71 pairs of legs; denticles of the forcipular coxosternite relatively elongate, about as long as wide; chitin-lines reaching the condyles; the largest sternal pore-fields on the posterior leg-bearing segments reaching the mid-length of the metasternite; all canals of the coxal organs opening through independent pores, more dense close to the lateral margins of the metasternites but most of them not covered by the latter, including a larger, posteriorly isolated pore on each coxopleuron. See also Table 3 and key to species.

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION. — Carpathians and Dobrogea.

TAXONOMIC AND NOMENCLATURAL NOTES Clinopodes rodnaensis was originally described by Verhoeff (1938) as a species in the subgenus Clinopodes of the genus Geophilus , and first assigned to the genus Clinopodes by Attems (1947). It was maintained as a distinct species by most subsequent authors, who also identified new specimens (Dărăbanţu & Matic 1969; Dărăbanţu et al. 1969; Negrea et al. 1970; Matic & Dărăbantzu 1971; Negrea 1994), but it was listed as a synonym of C. trebevicensis (a synonym of C. carinthiacus ; see above) by Foddai et al. (1995) (see also Minelli 1992). After the direct examination of a specimen that we confidently identified as C. rodnaensis , we can confirm the morphological differences given in the literature in respect to C. carinthiacus and all other species of Clinopodes ( Table 3), thus supporting the recognition of C. rodnaensis as a distinct species.