Glomeris klugii Brandt, 1833

Golovatch, Sergei, Mauriès, Jean-Paul, Akkari, Nesrine, Stoev, Pavel & Geoffroy, Jean-Jacques, 2009, The millipede genus Glomeris Latreille, 1802 (Diplopoda, Glomerida, Glomeridae) in North Africa, ZooKeys 12 (12), pp. 47-86 : 62-67

Glomeris klugii Brandt, 1833

Figs 10-14

Glomeris klugii Brandt, 1833: 195 (D).

Glomeris marmorata Brandt, 1833: 196 (D), syn. n.!

Glomeris fuscomarmorata Lucas, 1846: 284 (D), syn. n.!

Glomeris pustulata Latr. , var. marmorata – Brandt 1840b: 42 (R); 1841b: 148 (R); Gervais 1847: 73 (R).

Glomeris fusco-marmorata (sic!) – Gervais 1847: 74 (R); Lucas 1849: 327, plate 1, fig. 4 (R); Pocock 1892: 27 (F); Brolemann 1921: 101 (L).

Glomeris conspersa forma genuina (sic!) – Attems 1908: 105 (F).

Glomeris fuscomarmorata – Schubart 1953: 218 (L); Abrous-Kherbouche & Mauriès 1996: 586 (L).

Glomeris maculosa Verhoeff, 1921: 27 , fig. 3 (D), syn. n.!

Glomeris maculosa – Schubart 1953: 218 (L).

Glomeris conspersa – Abrous-Kherbouche & Mauriès 1996: 572, 586 (F, L).

Type material examined: Germany, “Hercynia”, leg. Zimmermann, 2 ♀? syntypes of Glomeris marmorata Brandt, 1833 (ZMUB 39). No lectotype designation has been made here, particularly as we did not directly examine the material .

Algeria, Philippeville (now Skikda), date?, leg. et det. H. Lucas, 1 ♀ syntype (“type”) of Glomeris fuscomarmorata (MNHN CC 043) .

Algeria, Gorges de la Chiffa, date?, leg. H. Ribaut, ♁ “type” of Glomeris maculosa Verhoeff, 1921 (ZSM A20070924 + micropreparation A 20032085). The ♁ represents only part of the syntype series, which was said to consist of 2 ♁ and 1 ♀ ( Verhoeff 1921) .

Other material (nearly all previously identified as Glomeris fuscomarmorata ): Algeria, “Bona” (now Annaba), leg. F. Meinert, 5 ♀ (ZMUC) . Algeria, le Ruisseau (environs of Algiers), 18.XII.1892, leg. P. Lesne, 2 ♀ (MNHN CC 168, entry 6-97) . Algeria, Ravin de la Femme Sauvage (environs of Algiers), XII.1892, leg. P. Lesne, 2 ♁, 2 ♀ (MNHN CC 168, entry 6-97) . Algeria, loc.?, 1898, leg. Noucelhier, 1 ♁, 3 ♀ (MNHN CC 168) . Algeria, Massif de l’Edough , VII-VIII.1918, leg. Ed. Ch. (?), 1 ♁ juv., 4 ♀ (MNHN CC 168) . Algeria, near Algiers, ruisseau des Singes , date?, leg. et det. H. Ribaut, 1 ♁, 1 ♀, 1♀ juv. (MNHN CC 043) . Algeria, Algiers, 3.IV.1907, leg. et det. H. Ribaut, 2 ♀ (MNHN CC 043) . Tunisia (Khroumirie), Jendouba Gov., Aïn Draham , V-VI.1906, leg. H. Gadeau de Kerville, 1 ♁ (MNHN CC 043). Same locality, Aïn Draham , Col des Ruines , 36°47‘N, 8°41‘E, 19.XI.2003, leg N. Akkari, 1 ♀ (NMNH). Same locality, 5.II.2004, leg N. Akkari, 3 ♀ (ZMUM). Same locality, 19.XI.2003, leg N. Akkari, 1 ♀ (NMNH). Same locality, 18.IV.2004, leg. N. Akkari, 1 juv. (ZMUM). Same locality ,

alt. approx. 735 m, 9.III.2009, leg. N. Akkari and H. Enghoff, 1 ♀ (ZMUC). Same locality, alt. approx. 710 m, 11.III.2009, leg. N. Akkari and H. Enghoff, 3 ♁, 1 ♁ juv., 11 ♀ (ZMUC). Same locality, Aïn Draham area , 5-18.V.1988, leg. Z. M. Cop. Exp., 3 ♁, 2 ♀ (ZMUC 200107). Same locality, 7 km S of Aïn Draham, Les Chênes , 22.03.1986, leg. Z. M. Cop. Exp., 2 ♁, 6 ♀ ( ZMUC 200109). Same locality, Fernana, 36°43’59″N, 8°40’43″E, alt. approx. 750 m, Quercus-Erica forest, 9.III.2009, leg. N. Akkari and H .

Enghoff, 2 ♁ juv., 3 ♀ ( ZMUC). Same locality, Aïn Draham, Beni M’Tir, 36°43’51″N, 8°42’19″E, alt. approx. 590 m, Quercus-Erica forest , 10.III.2009, leg. N. Akkari and H. Enghoff, 2 ♁, 1 ♁ juv., 2 ♀ ( ZMUC) .

Brief redescription: Length up to 13.5 mm, width up to 6.25 mm. Coloration mostly vivid, very distinctly marbled, pattern as in Figs 10-13. Syncoxite of telopods as in Figs 14A, B , with only minor variations in shape of central lobe and in delicately bifid coxal horns.

Remarks: The presumed type series of G. marmorata , even though represented by two dry, pinned specimens, has still preserved its colour pattern sufficiently well ( Fig. 11 ) to compare it with the beautiful illustrations by Koch (1863) and hence to unequivocally synonymize this species here with G. klugii , the holotype of which has been revised elsewhere ( Golovatch 2003). This formalizes Brolemann’s (1921) informal synonymy “ G. conspersa C. Koch, 1847 (= marmorata )” proposed in his checklist.

The syntype of G. fuscomarmorata examined here has faded completely, apparently due to the long preservation in alcohol. Fortunately, most of the other samples from North Africa, especially fresh ones, have retained their coloration (Figs 10, 12), which matches quite closely the pattern depicted by Lucas (1849), based on a then recently collected syntype (Fig. 13). We are certain, however, that this species must also have been printed somewhat too dark and red compared to its natural coloration in Lucas’ (1849) Plate 1, likely because Lucas used dry material (cf Figs 11 and 13). On the other hand, G. klugii in Europe is known to exist in two colour morphs, the dark “ undulata ” and the light “ conspersa ” ( Hoess 2000), of which “ conspersa ” is much more widespread

and occupies peripheral parts of the species’ distribution area, including North Africa. Could material of “ undulata ” have served, at least in part, for Lucas’ (1846, 1849) descriptions and illustrations? Hoess (2000) marked as questionable populations of “ conspersa ” from a few small, outlying areas in the Balkans, near Algiers and Tunis, but we can confirm the presence of G. klugii in North Africa. We suggest that it could well have arrived there, particularly at the largest sea ports, through commercial activities, which have been going on since prehistoric times throughout the Mediterranean. The synonymy of G. klugii and G. fuscomarmorata proposed here therefore appears fully justified.

Furthermore, we must give due tribute to Brandt (1840b, 1841a, b) who, already at the very beginning of diplopodological explorations in North Africa, wrote that his G. marmorata from Germany and Algeria were identical. Although he failed to recognize that his own G. klugii and G. marmorata actually represented the same speciesapparently because the holotype of G. klugii (surprisingly) did not show any striae on the thoracic shield, retained (in alcohol) its generally light coloration and was thought to have come from Egypt or Syria—he was essentially correct in thinking that the same species could exist on both continents. Likewise correct have been the very few subsequent records of “ conspersa ” in Algeria and Tunisia ( Attems 1908; Abrous-Kherbouche and Mauriès 1996), whereas most other authors believed that the North African fauna, including that of Glomeris , is fully endemic.

The syntype of G. maculosa is a “ conspersa ” specimen of G. klugii , with the colour pattern still well traceable. Hence the synonymy of these names is also proposed here.

The fact that G. klugii belongs to the “ Eurypleuromeris ” type provides an additional indication of its probable introduction to North Africa from Europe. Moreover, even though G. conspersa is the type-species of Eurypleuromeris, Verhoeff (1921) mistakenly attributed his G. maculosa to the “ Stenopleuromeris ” type. Indeed, the anterior part of tergum 3 in the syntype of G. maculosa that we have examined is probably a little narrower than is usual for European or other North African “ conspersa ” specimens of G. klugii , but this variation seems too modest to be considered a reliable distinction, perhaps even reflecting individual rather than geographical variation. This is another good reason to abandon the subgeneric division of Glomeris .

Figures

Figure 1. Glomeris troglokabyliana sp. n., ♁ paratype; A, left part of head showing ocelli and Tömösváry’s organ, dorsal view; B, antenna, lateral view; C, thoracic shield and terga 3 & 4, lateral view; D, leg 17; E, leg 18; F, G, leg 19 (telopod), caudal and frontal views, respectively. – Scale bar: 0.3 mm (D-G); drawn not to scale (A-C).

Figure 10. Glomeris klugii Brandt, 1833, ♀ from Tunisia, Aïn Draham area (ZMUC 200107); habitus, dorsal view. (Photographed not to scale by I. Muratov).

Figure 11. Glomeris klugii Brandt, 1833, both ♀?syntypes of G. marmorata Brandt, 1833 from “Hercynia” (ZMUB); A & B, habitus, dorsal view. (Photographed not to scale by A. Friederichs).

Figure 12. Glomeris klugii Brandt, 1833, ♀ from Tunisia, Aïn Draham area (MNHN CC 168); A, habitus, dorsal view; B, pygidium, caudal view. A schematic, slightly too bright presentation of the colour pattern (del. J.-P. Mauriès).

Figure 13. Glomeris klugii Brandt, 1833, ♀ syntype of G. fuscomarmorata Lucas, 1846 from Algeria. (after Lucas 1849).

Figure 14. Telopod syncoxite of Glomeris klugii Brandt, 1833; A, ♁ from near Algiers, ruisseau des Singes (MNHN CC 043); B, ♁ from Tunisia, Aïn Draham area (ZMUC 200107), both previously identified as G. fuscomarmorata Lucas, 1846. – Drawn not to scale.