Manor Mill Farm

Taunton, United Kingdom

Manor Mill Farm

Taunton, United Kingdom
SEARCH FILTERS
Time filter
Source Type

The morphological characters of members of the scolopendrid genus Asanada Meinert, 1886 are reviewed. A number of these characters are only seen in embryonic or early adolescent stadia in other scolopendrids. This suggests that the cen-tipedes of this genus are paedomorphic. Support for this thesis is provided by the very rare appearance (in only three spec-imens) of some otherwise "adult" characters. This paedomorphosis, in all probability neoteny, may account for the recently described incongruence between morphological and molecular data with respect to the position of the genus seen in cladistic analyses. Copyright © 2014 Magnolia Press.


The Otostigmus subgenus Otostigmus, which currently comprises 58 species, was subdivided by Lewis (2010a) into nine species groups based on Attems' (1930a) monograph. The orientalis group comprising 19 species and two subspecies is the subject of this paper. In most cases, the type material is redescribed and variation discussed. The following species are valid: O. ateles Chamberlin, 1920, O. australianus Attems, 1930, O. brevidentatus Verhoeff, 1937, O. foveolatus Verhoeff, 1937, O. kashmiranus Lewis, 1992, O. metallicus Haase, 1887, O. multidens multidens Haase, 1887, O. oatesi Kraepelin, 1903, O. orientalis Porat, 1876, O. ruficeps Pocock, 1890, and O. striolatus Verhoeff, 1937. O. seychellarum Attems, 1900, is reinstated as a valid species and O. niasensis Silvestri, 1895, and O. sucki Kraepelin, 1903 which may be O. metallicus are regarded as valid pro tem. O. greggi Chamberlin, 1944, is a junior subjective synonym of O. astenus (Kohlrausch, 1881), and O. loriae Silvestri, 1895, and O. multidens carens Attems, 1938, junior subjective synonyms of O. multidens. O. loriae nordicus Schileyko, 1995, becomes O. multidens nordicus comb. nov. O. nemorensis Silvestri, 1895, O. poonamae Khanna & Tripathi, 1986, and O. telus Chamberlin, 1939, are nomina dubia. A key to the species is provided. Copyright © 2014 Magnolia Press.


Kronmuller C.,Bavarian State Collection of Zoology | Lewis J.G.E.,Manor Mill Farm
ZooKeys | Year: 2015

The function of the variously shaped ultimate legs of Scolopendridae is briefly reviewed. Their function in Scolopendra heros Girard, 1853, Scolopendra subspinipes Leach, 1815, Scolopendra morsitans (Linnaeus, 1758), Scolopendra galapagoensis Bollman, 1889, Scolopendra hainanum Kronmüller, 2012, Scolopendra spinosissima Kraepelin, 1903 Cormocephalus aurantiipes (Newport, 1844) and Ethmostigmus trigonopodus (Leach, 1817), in which they are least specialised has been investigated. Specimens were tapped with forceps on different parts of the trunk to simulate the attack of a predator. When tapped on the first third of the trunk (near the head), the centipedes attacked the forceps with their forcipules. When tapped on the last third or the ultimate legs, they adopted a warning position, raising the ultimate legs to display the ventral and medial prefemoral spines as well as the spined coxopleural processes. In some cases the centipedes attacked the forceps with the claws of the ultimate legs by chopping down on them after lifting the legs high into the warning position. When tapped in the mid part of the trunk, the centipedes curled sideways to reach the forceps with their forcipules and ultimate legs simultaneously. Scolopendra galapa­goensis not only lifted the ultimate legs into the warning position but also the last 3-4 pairs of locomotory legs, presenting their distodorsal prefemoral spines. This resembles the warning posture of some spiders. In addition to their function in warning behaviour, defensive stabbing, ritualised meeting reactions and during courtship behaviour, the ultimate legs may in addition act as hooks and perhaps be involved in species recognition. No evidence was found that the ultimate legs are used to catch prey, nor of prey or predators being held between the prefemora. © Christian Kronmüller, John G. E. Lewis.


Three putative species comprising Verhoeff's Cryptops subgenus Trichocryptops are here reviewed. There is little justifi-cation for the retention of the subgenus and the three species previously assigned to it are here placed in synonymy with the subgenus Cryptops. Cryptops (T.) malaccanus Verhoeff, 1937, closely resembles Nepalese C. doriae Pocock, 1891, and it is proposed that it be regarded as its junior subjective synonym. Cryptops doriae, as presently understood, is widely distributed and quite variable. Cryptops (T.) brachyraphe Attems, 1934, and C. (T.) iucundus Würmli, 1972, are very sim-ilar but bearing in mind the present paucity of material, they are here retained as separate species. The possible characters distinguishing populations of C. doriae, C. nepalensis Lewis, 1999 and the three "Trichocryptops" species and C. niuensis Chamberlin, 1920, are reviewed. The current situation is far from satisfactory. Individual variation, possible ontogenetic changes, a relative paucity of morphological characters and small numbers of individuals render decisions as to the status of some Cryptops specimens problematical and subjective. Copyright © 2016 Magnolia Press.


The 25 putative species and two subspecies of the doriae group of the genus Cryptops (subgenus Cryptops) from the Old World and the Australasian region are here reviewed. The following are regarded as valid: C. audax Attems, 1928, C. australis Newport, 1845, C. dentipes Lawrence, 1960, C. dilagus Archey, 1921, C. doriae Pocock, 1891, C. japonicus Takakuwa, 1934, C. lamprethus Chamberlin, 1920, C. milloti Lawrence, 1960, C. modiglianii Silvestri, 1895, C. nanus Attems, 1938, C. navis Chamberlin, 1930, C. nepalensis Lewis, 1999, C. niuensis Chamberlin, 1920, C. pauliani Lawrence, 1960, C. philammus Attems, 1928, C. polyodontus Attems, 1903, C. setosior Chamberlin, 1959, C. stupendus Attems, 1928, C. tahitianus Chamberlin, 1920, C. typhloporus Lawrence, 1955. South African material assigned to C. australis by Attems (1928) is described as a new species C. capensis, and C. (C.) australis africanus Lawrence, 1955 is raised to full specific status as C. africanus. C. sinesicus Chamberlin, 1940 is a new junior subjective synonym of C. navis. C. afghanus Loksa, 1971, C. gracilimus Machado, 1951 and C. pauperatus Attems, 1937 are nomina dubia. Of the species here regarded as valid, further material from Australia and New Zealand is required to clarify the characteristics of C. australis. There has been confusion over the identities of the New Zealand species C. dilagus, C. lamprethus and C. polyodontus; their relationship should be further examined. The South African C. philammus and C. stupendus are also very similar and it is possible that further work may show them to be conspecific. The widely distributed C. doriae populations would, likewise, merit further investigation as would the relationship of the species to C. nepalensis and C. niuensis. It is possible that the inadequately described C. afghanus is identical to C. doriae. A provisional key to these species is provided.


Three putative species comprising Verhoeffs Cryptops subgenus Trichocryptops are here reviewed. There is little justification for the retention of the subgenus and the three species previously assigned to it are here placed in synonymy with the subgenus Cryptops. Cryptops (T.) malaccanus Verhoeff, 1937, closely resembles Nepalese C. doriae Pocock, 1891, and it is proposed that it be regarded as its junior subjective synonym. Cryptops doriae, as presently understood, is widely distributed and quite variable. Cryptops (T.) brachyraphe Attems, 1934, and C. (T.) iucundus Wrmli, 1972, are very similar but bearing in mind the present paucity of material, they are here retained as separate species. The possible characters distinguishing populations of C. doriae, C. nepalensis Lewis, 1999 and the three Trichocryptops species and C. niuensis Chamberlin, 1920, are reviewed. The current situation is far from satisfactory. Individual variation, possible ontogenetic changes, a relative paucity of morphological characters and small numbers of individuals render decisions as to the status of some Cryptops specimens problematical and subjective.


PubMed | Bavarian State Collection of Zoology and Manor Mill Farm
Type: | Journal: ZooKeys | Year: 2015

The function of the variously shaped ultimate legs of Scolopendridae is briefly reviewed. Their function in Scolopendraheros Girard, 1853, Scolopendrasubspinipes Leach, 1815, Scolopendramorsitans (Linnaeus, 1758), Scolopendragalapagoensis Bollman, 1889, Scolopendrahainanum Kronmller, 2012, Scolopendraspinosissima Kraepelin, 1903 Cormocephalusaurantiipes (Newport, 1844) and Ethmostigmustrigonopodus (Leach, 1817), in which they are least specialised has been investigated. Specimens were tapped with forceps on different parts of the trunk to simulate the attack of a predator. When tapped on the first third of the trunk (near the head), the centipedes attacked the forceps with their forcipules. When tapped on the last third or the ultimate legs, they adopted a warning position, raising the ultimate legs to display the ventral and medial prefemoral spines as well as the spined coxopleural processes. In some cases the centipedes attacked the forceps with the claws of the ultimate legs by chopping down on them after lifting the legs high into the warning position. When tapped in the mid part of the trunk, the centipedes curled sideways to reach the forceps with their forcipules and ultimate legs simultaneously. Scolopendragalapagoensis not only lifted the ultimate legs into the warning position but also the last 3-4 pairs of locomotory legs, presenting their distodorsal prefemoral spines. This resembles the warning posture of some spiders. In addition to their function in warning behaviour, defensive stabbing, ritualised meeting reactions and during courtship behaviour, the ultimate legs may in addition act as hooks and perhaps be involved in species recognition. No evidence was found that the ultimate legs are used to catch prey, nor of prey or predators being held between the prefemora.

Loading Manor Mill Farm collaborators
Loading Manor Mill Farm collaborators