Victoriocambala Verhoeff, 1944

Zoobank LSID. http://zoobank.org/ urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:

330CE9AA-124D-47EF-BCCC-6B60BE370A96

Victoriocambala Verhoeff, 1944: 35, 41; Jeekel, 1971: 115; Hoffman, 1980: 91; Jeekel, 1981: 40; Jeekel, 1985: 106, fig 4; Mauriès, 1987: 196, 198; Korsós & Johns, 2009: 3; Jeekel, 2009: 35; Edward & Harvey, 2010: 5; Korsós & Read, 2012: 46.

Type species. Victoriocambala buffalensis Verhoeff, 1944, by monotypy.

Remarks. Verhoeff (1944, p. 41) noted that his new, monotypic Victoriocambala was most closely related to Amastigogonus Brölemann, 1913, a then-monotypic Tasmanian genus to which he added two new Tasmanian species. By the time Jeekel (2009) described a second Victorian Victoriocambala species, the number of Tasmanian Amastigogonus species had increased to four (Hoffman 1972; Mauriès et al .. 2001), and I have since added another six Tasmanian species (Mesibov, 2017). Consistent and taxonomically useful differences between species in the two genera are listed in Table 1.

The two Victoriocambala species share several characters with the Tasmanian endemic Equestrigonus tasmaniensis Mesibov, 2017 . In all three cases, there is an apical fringe of long setae on the anterior gonopod telopodite, the leg 7 coxa is not elongated, there is a prominent tab anteriorly on the leg 1 prefemur and the leg 2 coxa, and prefemoral tabs begin on ring 5. E. tasmaniensis differs from the Victoriocambala species in diplosegment sculpture (suture weakly defined, longitudinal metazonite striae curving upwards towards suture), having a prominent setal crown on the posterior gonopod and the coxite process on the anterior gonopod directed posterodistally rather than parallelling the telopodite and protecting the pseudoflagellum (Mesibov, 2017). It seems likely that in a three-taxon molecular phylogeny, Equestrigonus and Victoriocambala would be more closely related than either is to Amastigogonus .