Trigonocryptops Verhoeff, 1906

Schileyko, Arkady A. & Stoev, Pavel E., 2016, Scolopendromorpha of New Guinea and adjacent islands (Myriapoda, Chilopoda), Zootaxa 4147 (3), pp. 247-280: 266-267

publication ID

http://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4147.3.3

publication LSID

lsid:zoobank.org:pub:6238B25B-787F-4F50-BFAE-03CD33D0F699

persistent identifier

http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03FD3267-0E5B-B019-FF5C-F8C6BF81F8B4

treatment provided by

Plazi

scientific name

Trigonocryptops Verhoeff, 1906
status

 

Subgenus Trigonocryptops Verhoeff, 1906 

Type-species. Cryptops gigas Kraepelin, 1903  (by subsequent designation of Attems, 1930).

Range. Caribbean Islands : Cuba  . S America: Peru, SE Brazil (São Paulo State, Rio de Janeiro State, Minas Geras State). Europe: Spain  . Africa: Algeria, Morocco, Ivory Coast, Guinea, Tanzania, Somalia, Yemen ( Sokotra Island )  , Gabon, Benin, Cameroon, Congo. SE Asia: India (Nagpur)  , Vietnam. Pacific: Australia (Queensland; Western Australia, Roe Plains ), Sumba  , East Timor, New Guinea Island  , Solomon Islands, New Caledonia, New Zealand, Fiji. We add to this list Argentina (Buenos Aires, Sierra de la Ventana Pcia, Cueva del Torro). 

Remarks. Attems (1930) wrote the first general key for subgenus Trigonocryptops  , which at the time contained 8 species; the most recent key to the subgenus is the one of Demange (1968), which comprises 10 (sub-)species. According to Bonato et al. (2016), Trigonocryptops  includes 24 species, but Lewis (2005) synonymised to it the subgenus Paratrigonocryptops Demange, 1963 with its single species C. (P.) quadrisulcatus Demange, 1963  . Murienne et al. (2011) transferred to this subgenus C. (C.) pictus Ribaut, 1923  and Ázara & Ferreira (2013) described C. (T.) iporangensis  and C. (T.) hephaestus  . Thus, at the moment Trigonocryptops  should include 28 species.

Although the number of species of Trigonocryptops  has increased more than in three times since Attems’ (1930), the recent papers concerning this taxon contain neither new identification keys, nor new subgeneric diagnosis. Both Edgecombe (2005) and Ázara & Ferreira (2013) repeated the combined data of Verhoeff (1906) and Attems (1930), but it should be corrected according to recent knowledge. For example at p. 235 Attems stated, that head of Trigonocryptops  covers the anterior margin of tergite 1, however both studied New Guinean representatives of this subgenus clearly show posterior margin of head capsule covered by tergite 1 (see below; also p. 102 in Würmli (1972)). Also Attems (p. 235) noted “zweiteilig” (=bipartite) katopleure (as in additional specimens of both C. (T.) iheringi (Brölemann, 1902)  and C. (T.) sarasini Ribaut, 1923  ), but both studied New Guinean exemplars have this sclerite definitely not divided vertically ( Fig. 50). As for the lateral projections of the anterior corners of the endosternite (which should be diagnostic for this subgenus) the similar small projections are visible in C. (С.) anomalans. The latter shows well-developed sternal transverse thickening between the coxae of legs (Fig. 49), reducing the distance between Trigonocryptops  and the nominal subgenus.

We also do not regard the following characters as diagnostic: coloration, bi- vs monopartite tarsus of legs, shape of spiracles and paired distal spinose processes of prefemur, femur, tibia and tarsus 1 of ultimate legs. All these features vary widely (sometimes even intraspecifically) in both Cryptops  s.str. and C. ( Trigonocryptops  ), so they have not been included in our new diagnosis. Summing up: all characters listed in Diagnosis below are shared by other species of Cryptops  s.str. (see also Lewis (2005: 123)) and none of them is shared by all representatives of Trigonocryptops  . Thus we regard the subgeneric status of the latter as questionable, confirming the recent statement of Lewis (in press) who has considered Cryptops  and Trigonocryptops  not “as clear cut as current research indicates”.

Murienne et al. (2011) at page 70 called the “rhomboid setose field delimited by sutures on the clypeus” and “trigonal sutures on anterior sternites“ to be the “unique apomorphies of C. ( Trigonocryptops  )”. However, the recent concept of this subgenus includes some species which have no sternal trigonal sutures; also clypeal setose plates are shared at least by C. (С.) nepalensis  and C. (С.) anomalans (see above; Figs 45, 48 respectively). The latter species has also well-developed sternal transverse thickening which are one of characteristic features of Trigonocryptops  . Thus, we believe that the recent concept of Trigonocryptops  must be reconsidered and only species having anterior sternites with complete trigonal sutures and clypeus with setose plate(s) should be assigned to Trigonocryptops  .

New diagnosis. Cephalic plate usually with paramedian sutures—complete or (more rarely) incomplete, its posterior margin covers (more rarely is covered by) the anterior margin of tergite 1.

Clypeus with 1 or 2 (large anterior and very small posterior) setose plates which are limited by sutures and bear 2–10 setae (“setose clypeal plates” sensu Lewis (2005)). Labrum with 1 or (more rarely) 3 teeth.

Tergite 1 mainly with anterior transverse suture, often with (complete or incomplete) paramedian sutures. Sternites with well-developed transverse thickening between the coxae. Endosternites clearly delimited anteriorly (often by the very characteristic trigonal sutures). Katopleure mainly bipartite.

Femur of ultimate legs mainly with 1 well-developed saw tooth.