Sterropristes Attems, 1934
|
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.4825.1.1 |
|
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:F230F199-1C94-4E2E-9CE4-5F56212C015F |
|
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4402210 |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03DE092D-FFCA-D732-FF13-FF76283DD86D |
|
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
|
scientific name |
Sterropristes Attems, 1934 |
| status |
|
Sterropristes Attems, 1934 View in CoL View at ENA
Figs 119–123
Synonyms. Malaccolabis Verhoeff, 1937
Type species. Sterropristes sarasinorum Attems, 1934 View in CoL (by monotypy).
Diagnosis. As for tribe.
Number of species. 3 ( Muadsub et al. 2012).
Remarks. Treated as a genus in Edgecombe & Bonato (2011: 403), Muadsub et al. (2012: 36), Vahtera et al. (2013: 594), Vahtera & Edgecombe (2014: 2, 7).
Several “diagnostic” features of Sterropristes mentioned by Muadsub et al. (2012) are also shared with other genera of Otostigminae , an exception being the “saw-like internal margin of the forcipular tarsungula” which serves as the “unique distinguishing character of Sterropristes ” ( Muadsub et al. 2012: 36). Vahtera & Edgecombe (2014: 7) also wrote: “a close relationship between Sterropristes and Edentistoma cannot be definitely discounted”. In fact, within Otostigminae only two these genera (plus Digitipes , at least in part; see above) have an unusually small median tooth of the labrum (in Scolopendrinae , also shared with species of Cormocephalus (Campylostigmus) ; see Edgecombe & Koch 2008, fig. 10e) and very characteristic short and much enlarged ultimate legs (see above), in both cases having dorsal sulci on proximal podomeres ( Fig. 116 View FIGURES 113–118 ). However they differ sharply from each other by: a. visibly thinned and elongated (in Edentistoma ; Fig. 114 View FIGURES 113–118 ) vs. much shortened and enlarged (in Sterropristes ; Fig. 120) forcipular tarsungula, b. presence (in Edentistoma ; Fig. 116 View FIGURES 113–118 ) vs. absence of tergal keels, c. spiracles without (in Edentistoma ; Fig. 115 View FIGURES 113–118 ) vs. with a well-developed atrium (Fig. 119). On the other hand, we also note shared characters in the structure of the forcipular segment of Ethmostigmus and Sterropristes (compare Figs 102 View FIGURES 102–107 and 121)—both of them have very similar shape of the tooth-plates and lack a well-developed forcipular trochantero-prefemoral process. However, molecular phylogenetics indicates that “monophyly (non-partitioned analyses) versus paraphyly (partitioned analyses) of Sterropristes + Ethmostigmus remains ambiguous” ( Siriwut et al. 2018: 1043).
It should be noted that Bonato et al. (2016) are obviously mistaken for not mentioning S. metallicus as the third valid species of Sterropristes ; its validity was confirmed by the molecular study of Siriwut et al. (2018: 1043) who wrote: “the mainland and insular species, S. metallicus and S. violaceus , have been verified as distinct species”.
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.