Plutonium Cavanna, 1881

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 : 24

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.4455411

persistent identifier

https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03DE092D-FFE5-D71D-FF13-FC872E14DA53

treatment provided by

Plazi

scientific name

Plutonium Cavanna, 1881
status

 

(!) Plutonium Cavanna, 1881 View in CoL View at ENA

Type species. Plutonium zwierleini Cavanna, 1881 View in CoL (by monotypy).

Diagnosis. LBS 2–20 with spiracles (figs 5 EG in Bonato et al. 2017). Coxopleuron lacks spine at the place of corresponding process. Prefemur and femur of the ultimate legs lacking spines; pretarsus much longer than tarsal articles taken together and “expanding ventrally in a sclerotized ridge” ( Bonato et al. 2017: 11) i.e. blade-like.

Number of species. 1.

Remarks. Treated as a genus in Di et al. (2010: 51), Edgecombe & Bonato (2011: 395), Bonato et al. (2017: 1); not included in Vahtera et al. (2012a). The most recent morphological account on Plutonium — Bonato et al. (2017) —lacks information on structure of maxillae 2.

As for possible non-monophyly of Plutonium , we agree with Di et al. (2010: 55) who wrote: ”In Plutoniumidae , the morphological analyses … retrieved Theatops as a paraphyletic group, i.e., Plutonium is nested within Theatops ... A three-genus classification … would increase paraphyly rather than lessen it ... We do not place Plutonium in synonymy under Theatops , which would eliminate non-monophyletic taxa from Plutoniumidae …”. That suggestion was confirmed partially by Bonato et al. (2017: 17), who noted that their molecular data did “not decisively favour any of the two alternative hypotheses: (1) Plutonium and Theatops represent two separate lineages, which is consistent with a previous hypothesis elaborated on morphological similarities ( Shelley, 1997) and in agreement with current taxonomy, (2) Plutonium is a derived lineage within Theatops , which is supported also by previous cladistic analyses on morpho-anatomical data”. Because of its unique segmental distribution of the spiracles, we think that Plutonium should be kept as a genus at the moment.

GBIF Dataset (for parent article) Darwin Core Archive (for parent article) View in SIBiLS Plain XML RDF