Refine
Document Type
- Article (4)
- Part of Periodical (2)
Language
- English (6)
Has Fulltext
- yes (6)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (6)
Keywords
- Chilopoda (3)
- Geophilomorpha (3)
- Neotropics (3)
- Amazon (1)
- Amazonia (1)
- Geophilidae (1)
- Macronicophilidae (1)
- Sardinia (1)
- alphabetic order of taxa (1)
- collapsing nodes (1)
Institute
- Extern (3)
A new genus is proposed within the family Geophilidae: Hyphydrophilus n. gen., for H. adisi n.sp. Four additional new species are described, i.e. the ballophilids ltyphilus crabilli n.sp. and Taeniolinllm arborum n.sp. and the schendylids Pecfiniunguis ascendens n.sp. and Schendyluflls amazonicl/s n.sp. The geophilid species Ribautia centralis (SILVESTRI, 1907) is redescribed, after material from Brazil compared with the holotype. The ballophilid Thalthybil/s perrieri BROLEMANN, 1909 is transferred to the genus ltyphi/us COOK, 1889 and a lectotype is designated here for it.
This paper is an annotated catalogue of the geophilomorph centipedes known from Mexico, Central America, West Indies, South America and the adjacent islands. 310 species and 4 subspecies in 91 genera in 111 families are listed, not including 6 additional taxa of uncertain generic identity and 4 undescribed species provisionally listed as 'n.sp.' under their respective genera. Sixteen new combinations are proposed: Garrina pujola (CHAMBERLIN, 1943) and G. vera (CHAMBERLIN, 1943), both from Pycnona; Nesidiphilus plusiopol'us (ATTEMS, 1947), from Mesogeophilus VERHOEFF, 1901; Polycricus bredini (CRABILL, 1960), P. cordoballensis (VERHOEFF, 1934), P. hailiensis (CHAMBERLIN, 1915) and P. nesiotes (CHAMBERLIN, 1915), all from Lestophilus; Tuoba baeckstroemi (VERHOEFF, 1924), from Geophilus (Nesogeophilus); T. culebrae (SILVESTRI, 1908), from Geophilus; T. laticollis (ATTEMS, 1903), from Geophilus (Nesogeophilus); Titanophilus hasei (VERHOEFF, 1938), from Notiphilides (Venezuelides); T. incus (CHAMBERLIN, 1941), from Incorya; Schendylops nealotus (CHAMBERLIN, 1950), from Nesondyla nealota; Diplethmus porosus (ATTEMS, 1947), from Cyclorya porosa; Chomatobius craterus (CHAMBERLIN, 1944) and Cil. orizabae (CHAMBERLIN, 1944), both from Gosiphilus. The new replacement name Schizonampa Iibera is proposed pro Schizonampa prognatha (CRABILL, 1964) ex Schizotaellia prognatha CRABILL, 1964 nec Schizotaenia prognatha COOK, 1896.
A new family (Macronicophilidae) is established for Macronicophilus Silvestri, 1909, currently placed in Geophilidae. Seven new species of Neotropical Geophilomorpha are described: Ilyphilus saudus n.sp. and I. sensibilis n.sp. (Baliophilidae), Hyphydrophilus projeclUs n.sp. and Ribautia onycophaena n.sp. (Geophilidae), Macronicophilus abbrevialus n.sp., M. unguiseta n.sp. and M. venezolanus n.sp. (Macronicophilidae). The hitherto unknown male of Schendylops marchantariae (PEREIRA, MINELLI & BARBIERI, 1995) is described and two species (Pectiniunguis geayi (BROLEMANN & RIBAUT, 1911) and Ityphilus calinus CHAMBERLIN, 1957 are redescribed from the type and new material. A key to the species of Macronicophilus is provided.
Evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo) suggests a distinction between modular and systemic variation. In the case of modular change, the conservation of the overall structure helps recognizing affinities, while a single, fast evolving module is likely to produce a bonanza for the taxonomist, while systemic changes produce strongly deviating morphologies that cause problems in tracing homologies. Similarly, changes affecting the whole life cycle are more challenging than those limited to one stage. Developmental modularity is a precondition for heterochrony. Analyzing a matrix of morphological data for paedomorphic taxa requires special care. It is, however, possible to extract phylogenetic signal from heterochronic patterns. The taxonomist should pay attention to the intricacies of the genotype→phenotype map. When using genetic data to infer phylogeny, a comparison of gene sequences is just a first step. To bridge the gap between genes and morphology we should consider the spatial and temporal patterns of gene expression, and their regulation. Minor genetic change can have major phenotypic effects, sometimes suggesting saltational evolution. Evo-devo is also relevant in respect to speciation: changes in developmental schedules are often implicated in the divergence between sympatric morphs, and a developmental modulation of ‘temporal phenotypes’ appears to be responsible for many cases of speciation.
Endogeophilus ichnusae gen. et sp. nov. (Chilopoda: Geophilidae sensu stricto) is described based on three specimens from two localities in south-western Sardinia, examined by light and scanning electron microscopy. The new centipede resembles the rare Ibero-Pyrenean genus Galliophilus Ribaut & Brolemann, 1927 in some features, especially in the forcipular segment, and the temperate European species Geophilus electricus (Linnaeus, 1758) in other features, especially in the ultimate leg-bearing segment. However, the true affinities of E. ichnusae gen. et sp. nov. are uncertain, because the new species departs significantly from the majority of geophilids for the higher number of legs (91–107 pairs in the specimens examined), the slender trunk segments (the sternites being longer than wide), the relatively stout legs (the tarsus being only about twice as long as wide) and the very short setae (≤ 15 mm) scattered on the body surface. All these features are probably derived and suggest adaptation to a more strictly endogeic habit than other geophilids.
Taxonomic criteria alone are not sufficient to determine a linear sequence for the arrangement of collection specimens according to a preferred classification or the linear sequence according to which taxa are best discussed in articles or books. The choice of methodology to obtain a linear sequence of taxa in agreement with a hierarchical classification has been little studied and remains controversial. In this article, I offer an historical background, before examining properties, use and limits of possible listing criteria. The result of a linearization effort depends on arbitrary choices with respect to two aspects of the hierarchical classification we intend to linearize. One is the order to be followed in listing the immediately subordinate members of a given taxon, the other is the choice of the sets of taxa to be linearized according to tradition, alphabetic order or other criterion. The example presented here, related to the “orders” of Hexapoda, demonstrates the need to specify very clearly the extent and composition of the uncollapsed classification backbone retained in the linearization procedure.