Bothropolys rugosus ( Meinert, 1872 )
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.3847.3.2 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:D0095F72-699E-4315-888C-0252AF873ECE |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3514078 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CB87B1-FFF0-1D62-FF48-F82DFAB60DD4 |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Bothropolys rugosus ( Meinert, 1872 ) |
status |
|
Bothropolys rugosus ( Meinert, 1872) View in CoL
Lithobius rugosus Meinert, 1872: 306
Bothropolys asperatus L. Koch, 1878: 788 View in CoL
Lithobius thetidis Karsch, 1880: 848 View in CoL
Bothropolys shimensis Pocock, 1895: 349 View in CoL
Bothropolys spinosior Chamberlin, 1920: 78 View in CoL
Bothropolys migrans Chamberlin, 1930: 69 View in CoL
Bothropolys asperatus View in CoL — Takakuwa, 1941b: 35, fig 23 Bothropolys asperatus asperatus View in CoL — Takakuwa & Takashima, 1949: 58 Bothropolys asperatus View in CoL — Chamberlin & Wang, 1952: 184 Bothropolys asperatus View in CoL — Wang, 1956: 159
Bothropolys asperatus View in CoL — Chen & Ye, 1959: 95, figs 1 1 – 5 Bothropolys asperatus View in CoL — Wang, 1963: 95
Bothropolys rugosus View in CoL — Eason, 1974: 20, fig 6
Bothropolys rugosus View in CoL — Wang & Mauriès, 1996: 91 Bothropolys asperatus View in CoL — Chao, 2005: 39
Bothropolys rugosus View in CoL — Zapparoli, 2006
Bothropolys rugosus View in CoL — Stagl & Zapparoli, 2006: 4 Bothropolys rugosus View in CoL — Ma, Song & Zhu, 2008a: 43 View Cited Treatment Bothropolys rugosus View in CoL — Chao, 2010: 339
Previous records. Anhui Province (Huangshan City), Hebei Province (Baoding, Hengshui and Zhangjiakou Cities), Henan Province (Anyang, Nanyang, Xinyang and Zhumadian Cities), Hunan Province (Changsha, Dayong and Zhangjiajie Cities), Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region (Baise, Chongzuo, Guilin, Nanning and Pingxiang Cities), Guizhou Province (Zunyi City), Shaanxi Province (Hanzhong and Huayin Cities), Sichuan Province (Guangyuan City), Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region (Hami City) ( Chen & Ye, 1959; Ma et al., 2008a); Shanxi Province (Xinzhou and Yuncheng Cities), ( Takakuwa & Takashima, 1949); Zhejiang Province (Shengsi City) ( Chamberlin & Wang, 1952); Taiwan (Hualien) ( Wang, 1956); Taiwan (Ta Ping Shan) ( Wang, 1963).
Remarks. Eason (1974) established that asperatus , thetidis , shimensis , spinosior and migrans are synonyms of Bothropolys rugosus . Also known from Uzbekistan, Kirghizstan, Japan, North Korea, the Philippines, New Guinea, the Hawaiian Islands( Ma, Song & Zhu, 2008a). This species is not only naturally widespread in China, but also widespread in eastern Asia. However, it was also found in the Hawaiian Islands, Eason (1974, 1977) suggested that B. rugosus had been introduced in the Hawaiian Islands from either Japan or the mainland of eastern Asia.
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
Bothropolys rugosus ( Meinert, 1872 )
Ma, Huiqin, Pei, Sujian, Hou, Xiaojie, Zhu, Tiegang, Wu, Dayong & Gai, Yonghua 2014 |
Bothropolys rugosus
Chao 2005: 39 |
Wang 1996: 91 |
Bothropolys rugosus
Eason 1974: 20 |
Bothropolys asperatus
Wang 1963: 95 |
Chen 1959: 95 |
Bothropolys asperatus
Wang 1956: 159 |
Chamberlin 1952: 184 |
Takakuwa 1949: 58 |
Takakuwa 1941: 35 |
Bothropolys migrans
Chamberlin 1930: 69 |
Bothropolys spinosior
Chamberlin 1920: 78 |
Bothropolys shimensis
Pocock 1895: 349 |
Lithobius thetidis
Karsch 1880: 848 |
Bothropolys asperatus
Koch 1878: 788 |
Lithobius rugosus
Meinert 1872: 306 |