Cylindroiulus

Read, Helen J., 2005, A revision of the Cylindroiulus distinctus Lucas group from north Africa, with descriptions of six new species (Diplopoda, Julida, Julidae), Journal of Natural History 39 (18), pp. 1491-1532 : 1529-1531

Other Cylindroiulus species from the region

Cylindroiulus tunetanus Attems, 1908

This species was described from the Ain-Draham area of Tunisia and has also been found in the G. Kabylie region of Algeria (specimens in ZMUC). Externally the species is similar to those described above, although rather smaller in size than most. The gonopods differ by the presence of a large paracoxal process that is apparently spinose at the apex and it is thus unlike any of the species of the C. distinctus group. The posterior gonopods are described by Attems (1908) as ‘‘quite simple’’, but the tip of the solenomere does bear a small projection (a brachite?). Interestingly, there is a small, thin flange on the solenomere, reminiscent of projection X. For the present time, however, the presence of a paracoxal process places this species outside the group.

Cylindroiulus lohmanderi ( Schubart, 1932)

Syntypes of this species, from Tanger, Morocco were examined (ZMB No. 5568, leg. Collin, 2 „, 3♀). It was originally described as Solaenoiulus lohmanderi but the monotypic genus was synonymized with Cylindroiulus by Read (1990). The millipedes externally resemble those of the Cylindroiulus distinctus group. The gonopods, however, were not so easy to examine. One set is mounted on a slide and being thick they are not easy to see when mounted. The opisthomerite of one half is broken, that of the other closely resembles the drawing by Schubart (1960). There is another male that has been dissected and the gonopods are not slide mounted. Half of the gonopods are badly twisted and may also be partly broken. The other half has part of the opisthomerite broken and although it resembles that of the drawn gonopod it does not look completely identical. The gonopods that are not slide mounted show similarities with the C. distinctus group. There is a very high paracoxal rim and no paracoxal process. There seems to be a brachite that is separate from the solenomere. The brachite does seem to be forked and in postero-mesal view expanded slightly apically, which is not apparent from the drawing by Schubart. Also not figured in the original drawing is a small projection on the solenomere in lateral view, perhaps corresponding to projection X. These details of the brachite and solenomere are not distinguishable on the slide-mounted gonopods.

In conclusion, Cylindroiulus lohmanderi may belong to the C. distinctus group. However, more specimens in better condition would be desirable before it is possible to be sure. There may be more specimens from the type series in Brazil (where it is known that part of Schubart’s collection is now kept) but it has not been possible to establish this for certain.