Newportia (Newportides) Chamberlin, 1921

Schileyko, Arkady A., Vahtera, Varpu & Edgecombe, Gregory D., 2020, An overview of the extant genera and subgenera of the order Scolopendromorpha (Chilopoda): a new identification key and updated diagnoses, Zootaxa 4825 (1), pp. 1-64 : 14

Newportia (Newportides) Chamberlin, 1921

Type species. Newportia unguifer Chamberlin, 1921 (by original designation).

Diagnosis. Anterior margin of forcipular coxosternite bilobed, distinctly divided by deep median diastema, but lacking well-developed tooth plates (figs 4, 21, 32 in Chagas-Jr 2018); tarsungula overlapping each other by at least 1/3 of their length when adducted. LBS 7 with spiracles. Ultimate legs with tarsus 2 divided into some variably-distinct secondary articles and with well-developed claw-shaped pretarsus (figs 29, 47 in Chagas-Jr 2018).

Number of species: 3.

Remarks. Not present in Edgecombe & Bonato (2011); Bonato et al. (2016) mentioned the name Newportides as a synonym of Newportia . The most recent morphological account has been made by Chagas-Jr (2018).

Schileyko & Minelli (1999: 270) wrote: “As for Newportides , we put it straight in synonymy of Newportia . Newportides does not seem to be a natural group… The character which should identify this “subgenus” (clawshaped praetarsus of terminal [=ultimate] legs) is not stable. For instance, according to our observations (see also Chamberlin [1914a]), in some specimens of the usually clawless N. ernsti Pocock, 1891 and N. stolli (Pocock, 1896) a distinct praetarsus is present, in the shape of a small claw… Summing up, Newportides seems to be an unnatural, composite taxon”. However, based solely on morphology, Chagas-Jr (2018: 155) re-validated the subgenus Newportides . He considered the presence of a claw-shaped pretarsus of the ultimate leg to be taxonomically more important than the structure of the ultimate tarsus 2—therefore his Newportides would include species with both regular and irregular division of the ultimate tarsus 2. In our opinion, however, the latter character is much more important from the phylogenetic point of view (at least because it is obviously less adaptive). This idea is indirectly supported by the monophyly of the group of Newportia species with irregular division of ultimate tarsus 2, proposed by Vahtera et al. (2013). It should also be noted that the species of re-validated Newportides have not yet been included in any molecular analysis, so we consider the validity of this subgenus as questionable.