Clinopodes carinthiacus ( Latzel, 1880 ), Bonato & Iorio & Minelli, 2011

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: 180-183

publication ID 10.5252/z2011n2a3

persistent identifier

treatment provided by


scientific name

Clinopodes carinthiacus ( Latzel, 1880 )


Clinopodes carinthiacus ( Latzel, 1880)  

TYPE MATERIAL AND TYPE LOCALITY. — 1 ♀, holotype   ; from “ Kärnten ” [= Carinthia ( Austria)] ( Latzel 1880)   .

SYNONYMS. — Geophilus flavidus trebevicensis Verhoeff, 1898   : n. syn. (see below) (type material and type localities: unknown number of syntypes, from Mt. Trebević, Moscanica valley, Ivan Sedlo, Mt. Igman, Plasa near Jablanica, Jajce in the Pliva valley [all in Bosnia & Herzegovina] and Monte Baldo [ Italy]). — Geophilus rodnaensis strasseri Verhoeff, 1938   : n. syn. (see below) (type material and type localities: two syntypes, from Kanal [ Slovenia] and Cavasso Nuovo [ Italy]). — Geophilus balcanicus Kaczmarek, 1972   : n. syn. (see below) (type material and type locality: holotype, from Borovets [ Bulgaria]).

NOMINAL SUBSPECIES. — Clinopodes carinthiacus poschiavensis (Verhoeff, 1934)   .

MAIN REFERENCES. — Latzel 1880: 178 (original description, as Geophilus flavidus var. carinthiacus   ); Attems 1895: 162 (redescription); Verhoeff1898: 350 (original description of G. flavidus trebevicensis   ); Attems 1929a: 204 (redescription as C. flavidus   escherichii var. trebevicensis   ); Verhoeff 1934a: 12 (redescription as G. trebevicensis   ), 13 (original description of G. trebevicensis poschiavensis   ); Verhoeff 1938: 341 (original description of G. rodnaensis strasseri   ); Attems 1947: 120 (in key as C. trebevicensis   ); Kanellis 1959: 38 (in key as C. flavidus escherichi   [sic] var. trebevicensis   ); Kaczmarek 1972: 262 (original description of G. balcanicus   ); Matic 1972a: 76 (in key as C. trebevicensis   ), 91 (redescription as C. trebevicensis   ); Stoev 2002: 89 (in key as C. trebevicensis   ).

MATERIAL EXAMINED. — Albania. Boga, MayaTchardakut, 2. VI.1993 P. Beron lg: 1 ♀ (32 mm, 59 leg pairs) (coll. MB). — Maja Radohimës, 29. V.1993 P. Beron lg: 1 ♀ (35 mm, 61 leg pairs) (coll. MB).

Greece. Ori Vrondus, 7. VI.1983 G. Etonti lg: 1 ♀ (18 mm, 55 leg pairs), 1 ơ (26 mm, 53 leg pairs) (coll. MB).

Italy. Oltressenda Alta, Orobic Alps, 26.IV.1981 A. Valle lg: 2 ơơ (19 and 21 mm, both 55 leg pairs) ( MSNB). — Cansiglio, 20.VII.1997 A. Minelli lg: 2♀♀ (33 and 23 mm, 57 and 55 leg pairs), 1 ơ (24 mm, 53 leg pairs) (coll. MB).

DIAGNOSIS. — A Clinopodes   species up to c. 3-4 cm long; 51-57 pairs of legs in the male, 55-61 in the female; denticles of the forcipular coxosternite relatively short, distinctly wider than long; chitin-lines vanishing before reaching the condyles; the largest sternal pore-fields on the posterior leg-bearing segments reaching or even extending beyond 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. — Central and Eastern Alps, western and southern part of the Balkan Peninsula; westwards to Rhetic and Orobic Alps, eastwards to regions west of the Black Sea, northwards to northern Prealps and Carpathians, southwards to southern Prealps, Dinarides, Corfu and continental Greece.

TAXONOMIC AND NOMENCLATURAL NOTES Clinopodes carinthiacus   was originally described by Latzel (1880) as a “variety” of Geophilus flavidus   , and other specimens from Silesia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Istria were later assigned to it ( Haase 1881; Latzel 1888; Attems 1895). However, its status remained unclear: Selivanov (1884) considered it a junior synonym of Geophilus montanus Meinert, 1870   , which he considered distinct from C. flavidus   at difference from other authors (see below); Verhoeff (1898) suspected that it could be identical to his new subspecies G. flavidus trebevicensis   , but later suggested that it could be closer to Geophilus flavidus var. styriaca Attems, 1895   (however, misquoting it as “ styricus Verh.”) ( Verhoeff1934a); Attems (1929a) considered it a mere variety of the subspecies C. flavidus flavidus   but later cited it as a full subspecies of C. flavidus ( Attems 1947)   ; Würmli (1972) commented on the weak morphological evidence for a taxonomical distinction from C. flavidus   , and all other modern authors simply ignored it. Based on the published accounts, the number of legs in the holotype (55 pairs, vs. usually more than 61 in typical C. flavidus   from Eastern Alps; Latzel 1880) together with the size of the tubercles on forcipular coxosternites in other specimens subsequently recorded (smaller than in typical C. flavidus   ; Attems 1895), suggest that the name G. flavidus var. carinthiacus   was actually applied since its introduction to the species that has been later distinguished and almost universally cited as C. trebevicensis ( Verhoeff, 1898)   (see below). According to the principle of priority, G. flavidus var. carinthiacus   should therefore be adopted as the valid name of this species, as C. carinthiacus   (new status at the species rank). Conditions for the reversal of precedence ( ICZN 1999: art. 23.9) are not met, because G. flavidus trebevicensis   has been used – to the best of our knowledge – in less than 25 publications in the preceding 50 years, and G. flavidus var. carinthiacus   has been cited as valid after 1899 (including Attems 1947).


Geophilus flavidus trebevicensis   was described by Verhoeff (1898), based on an unknown number of specimens of either sex from “Trebevic, im Mittelgebiet” (=Mt.Trebević [ Bosnia and Herzegovina]), “Moscanicathal” (= Moscanica valley [ Bosnia and Herzegovina]), “Ivan” (= Ivan Sedlo [ Bosnia and Herzegovina]), “Igman” (= Mt. Igman [ Bosnia and Herzegovina]), “Plasa b. Jablanica” (= Plasa, near Jablanica [ Bosnia and Herzegovina]), “Jaice, Plivathal” (= Jajce, in the Pliva valley [ Bosnia and Herzegovina]), and “Mt. Baldo” (= Monte Baldo [ Italy]). It was first raised to the species rank by Verhoeff (1934a) as Geophilus (Clinopodes) trebevicensis   . Its taxonomic distinction was never explicitly disregarded, but it was lowered to a mere “variety” of the subspecies C. flavidus escherichii   (currently a full species C. escherichii   ) by Attems (1929a, b), an opinion followed only by Kanellis (1959). Since Attems (1947), it has been almost universally regarded as a full species in the genus Clinopodes   . Identity with G. flavidus var. carinthiacus   was explicitly suspected since its introduction ( Verhoeff 1898), and is here confirmed based on all published accounts (see above). In agreement with such interpretation is the fact that all specimens assigned to G. flavidus var. carinthiacus   are from within the known range of C. trebevicensis   , and that specimens of both typical C. flavidus   and the variety carinthiacus   were apparently recorded by Latzel (1888) in two localities in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Geophilus rodnaensis strasseri   was described by Verhoeff (1938) based on two females from two localities from “Canale im Isonzotal” (= Kanal [ Slovenia]) and “Cavasso” (= Cavasso Nuovo [ Italy]), in the Julian and Carnic Prealps. It was later recorded further from the Caucasus ( Verhoeff 1938), but it was frequently ignored by other authors and Minelli (1992) recognized it implicitly as identical to C. trebevicensis   . Based on the few morphological traits described by Verhoeff (1938), G. rodnaensis strasseri   corresponds to C. carinthiacus   in a combination of characters diagnostic of the latter in respect to all other known Clinopodes   species, including the aspect of the forcipular chitin-lines, the number of pairs of legs, the extent of the posterior pore-fields, and the arrangement of the coxal pores. The first three characters differentiate G. rodnaensis strasseri   also from the typical C. rodnaensis   . Apparently in contrast to C. carinthiacus   , the marginal tubercles on the forcipular coxosternite were described by Verhoeff (1938) as relatively large in the species G. rodnaensis   , to which the subspecies strasseri is referred, but it is not clear whether this character applies to strasseri too. Also the provenance of both syntypes of G. rodnaensis strasseri   is consistent with the synonymy here proposed, as both localities are well within the known range of C. carinthiacus   and not that of C. rodnaensis   . Also worth noting is the fact that Verhoeff (1938) diagnosed G. rodnaensis strasseri   only in respect to his new species G. rodnaensis   and not in respect to G. flavidus var. carinthiacus   or G. flavidus trebevicensis   , based on his unwarranted opinion of a closer affinity to the former.





Geophilus (Clinopodes) balcanicus   was described by Kaczmarek (1972) based on a single female from “Borovec” (= Borovets [ Bulgaria]) and another 19 specimens of either sex from different localities in the Balkans, and was recorded further from the region ( Ribarov 1989). It was maintained as a valid species, in the genus Geophilus   , by Ribarov (1989, 1996) and Stoev (1997), until Stoev (2002) synonymized it under C. trebevicensis   (a synonym of C. carinthiacus   ; see above), referring to a unpublished document for supporting arguments. Based on the original description ( Kaczmarek 1972), G. balcanicus   agrees with C. carinthiacus   in major characters that are diagnostic in comparison with all other species of Clinopodes   , including the number of pairs of legs, the extent of the posterior pore-fields, and the arrangement of the coxal pores.


Mykotektet, National Veterinary Institute


Universidade de Lisboa, Museu Bocage


Royal British Columbia Museum - Herbarium


University of Newcastle