Entomobrya unostrigata Stach, 1930
|
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.4461.2.1 |
|
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:5FED8A04-0578-46E2-A1E2-638F781E5646 |
|
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6490757 |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/D46487FE-AB16-5B48-FF06-FDBCFBE5FE84 |
|
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
|
scientific name |
Entomobrya unostrigata Stach, 1930 |
| status |
|
Entomobrya unostrigata Stach, 1930 View in CoL
Figs 3J View FIGURE 3 , 4S View FIGURE 4 , 21A–G View FIGURE 21 , Table 7
Material studied. A. Fjellberg leg.: Tenerife, Las Arenas, moist grass on trail, 14.IV.1972, coordinates 28.39253°N, 16.54783°W, 230 m a.s.l., (Loc. 24) two females on slide ( MZLU-VAR 00001831 and MZLU-VAR 00001835) and three specimens in ethyl alcohol ( MZLU-VAR 00001832 to MZLU-VAR 00001834).
Description of the studied specimens from the Canary Islands. Body length up to 2.62 mm, excluding antennae. Colour pattern exactly as typical for the species, with the characteristic dorso-longitudinal narrow line, and the transversal line situated on posterior Abd III ( Figs 3J View FIGURE 3 , 4S View FIGURE 4 ).
Head. Eight eyes, GH only slightly smaller than EF. Antennae length 1.22 mm, 1.15 times the length of the head. Ant IV with apical vesicle bilobed. The relative length of Ant I/II/III/IV = 1/2.06/1.76/2.35 (n = 1 for all measurements). Labral papillae not simple, pointed and apparently variable in the number of spines from one to three ( Fig. 21E View FIGURE 21 ). Lateral process of labial papilla E reaching or a little longer than the papilla end.
Body. Length ratio of Abd IV/III = 3.38 (n = 1). Trochanteral organ with 20 chaetae. Tibiotarsus not subsegmented, without smooth chaetae, except for smooth terminal chaeta on legs III. Claw with four teeth: paired at 50% and first unpaired at 75% from basis; dorsal teeth not basal, reaching almost to the level of lateral one ( Fig. 21F View FIGURE 21 ). Empodium lanceolate, with smooth external lamella in leg III. Tenent hair clavate. Length of manubrium and dens 0.45 and 0.61 mm, respectively (n = 2). Manubrial plate with four chaetae and two pseudopores. Mucro with subapical tooth clearly smaller than distal one in size, mucronal spine reaching the tip of the subapical tooth ( Fig. 21G View FIGURE 21 ).
Macrochaetotaxy ( Figs 21A–D View FIGURE 21 ). Simplified Mc formula: 3-1-0-3-2/1-4/2-4/1-0-1/3(4)-1 0 5-1 0 1-1 0 2-2. Mesothorax: area T1 with one Mc (m 2i); T2 with four Mc (m4, m 4i, a5 and m5). Abdomen: Abd II area A1 with two Mc (a2 and a3), area A2 with four Mc (m3, m3ep, m3ea and m3eai2); Abd III with one Mc each on areas A3 (a1) and A5 (m3e); Abd IV with 3–4 chaetae on A6 (B e3 sometimes absent), one unpaired and five Mc on A7 (A5, B2, B3, C1 and E1), one unpaired and one Mc on A8 (A4), one unpaired and two Mc on A9 (A5 and B5, but A5 smaller) and two Mc on A10 (A6 and B6; sometimes A e7 present as ms); trichobothrium in A11 and A12 location ( Fig. 21D View FIGURE 21 ).
Ecology. Found on moist grass on a trail.
Remarks. The eyes GH in the original description of the species are smaller than in the specimens from the Canary Islands. Other differences from previous descriptions: H4 and H5 on the head, T1 on Th II, and unpaired chaetae on Abd IV ( Table 7). The dorsal macrochaetotaxy for the Abd II and III is the same, which has proven very consistent in many other species of Entomobrya . Note that the description of Jordana (2012) is made based on a single specimen, although it is the Holotype. Table 7 shows the studied specimens of the Canary Islands, and the holotype shows only six differences for 48 chaetotaxy characters considered. In addition, the Canarian specimens and those observed by Katz et al. (2015b) from North America show a maximum of seven differences, three of which are the absence of unpaired macrochaetae on the Abd IV. In conclusion, the species E. unostrigata can be considered to have the following simplified formula: 3-1-0-3-2(3)/1(2)-4/2-4(3,5)/1-0-1/4(2– 5)-1 0(0)4(5)-1 0(0)1(2)-1 0(0)2(1–3)-2.
In Jordana (2012), an error is present in the mucro description, where the teeth are said to be similar in size, whereas in the original description, the subapical tooth is smaller than the apical one.
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.