identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
9DCB1C9DC8C55396980F4384AFF68104.text	9DCB1C9DC8C55396980F4384AFF68104.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Geophilus captiosus Popovici, Popa & Iorgu 2026	<div><p>Geophilus captiosus Popovici, Popa &amp; Iorgu sp. nov.</p><p>Material examined.</p><p>Holotype. Romania • ♀ (MNINGA CHI 103), Hunedoara County, Gura Apelor, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=22.7195&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=45.3414" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 22.7195/lat 45.3414)">Retezat National Park</a> (45.3414°N, 22.7195°E), ca. 1080 m asl., mixed coniferous and deciduous forest, upper soil layers, 27 July 2020, leg. G. Popovici .</p><p>Paratypes. • 1 ♀ (MNINGA CHI 106), same as holotype; • 3 ♂♂ (MNINGA CHI 104, MNINGA CHI 105, and MNINGA CHI 107), same as holotype .</p><p>Other materials.</p><p>Romania • 1 ♂ 5 ♀♀, (NHM NHMUK 015991407), same as holotype .</p><p>Diagnosis.</p><p>Characterized by the following unique combination of characters: 45–47 leg-bearing segments; antennae 4.5 longer than cephalic plate, articles II – VII elongate, 1.63–1.7 times longer than wide; cephalic plate length / width ratio&gt; 1.2; clypeus with two evident clypeal areas; forcipular coxosternite as long as wide, with incomplete chitin lines; inner margin of forcipular tarsungulum without crenulation; metasternites 2–15 with unconsolidated carpophagus structures (sensu Crabill 1954) and spindle-shaped pore fields; posterior metasternites including the penultimate with two posterior clusters of pores; coxopleuron of last leg-bearing segment with coxal pores opening independently on entire ventro-lateral surface; telopodite of ultimate leg pair with claw-shaped pretarsus.</p><p>Description of examined material.</p><p>Habitus: 45–47 leg-bearing segments, body length 18–24 mm, color of preserved specimens yellow, with darker head and forcipular segment.</p><p>Head and antennae (Fig. 1): Cephalic plate approximately 1.25 times longer than broad (0.61–0.65 mm long, 0.49–0.52 mm wide), with straight posterior margin overlapped by the forcipular tergite. Chaetotaxy illustrated in Fig. 1. Basal plate and sulci absent. Antennae approximately 4.5 times longer than the cephalic plate (2.7–2.9 mm long), with basal articles distinctly elongate (1.63–1.7 times longer than wide). Articles I – X with rows of 2– 4 type a sensilla dorsally and laterally, articles XI – XIII with one type a sensillum dorsally. Article XIV approximately two times longer than wide, with two rows of sensilla basiconica laterally, occupying 20 % of its length and a small cluster of type b sensilla apically.</p><p>Clypeus (Fig. 2 A, B): Uniformly reticulated, with one or two clypeal areas circumscribing the intermediate pair of sensilla. Clypeal setation comprising three pairs of sensilla, the largest being the intermediate. Clypeal areas lighter than surrounding cuticle, with indistinct but visible reticulation. Paraclypeal sutures faintly curved.</p><p>Labrum (Fig. 2 A): Intermediate part with 7–8 tubercles, of which the central 5 are most visible and strongly sclerotized. Lateral parts with 7–9 hyaline bristles.</p><p>Mandible: Typical geophilid aspect with fine reticulation and a single pectinate lamella.</p><p>First maxillae (Fig. 2 C, E): Triangular coxosternal projections present; telopodites biarticulated, slightly longer than projections; coxosternal and telopodal lappets present and prominent, reaching just below the tip of the distal telopodal article.</p><p>Second maxillae (Fig. 2 C, D): Coxosternite undivided, with widely concave anterior margin. Articles 1 and 2 with 1–3 sensilla coeloconica laterally; article 3 densely setose distally, terminating in a large, claw-shaped pretarsus bearing an evident distal pore.</p><p>Forcipular segment (Fig. 2 F – H): Forcipular tergite narrowing anteriorly. Forcipular coxosternite approximately as broad as long (1.03 times wider than long), slightly broader than the cephalic shield, and visibly protruding over the anterior edges of the forcipular tergite. Chitin lines vanishing before reaching the condyles, pointing laterally to them. Anterior margin with a shallow but evident notch and without denticles. Isolated reticulation pattern and chaetotaxy as in Fig. 2 F. Forcipules extending slightly past the anterior edge of the cephalic shield when closed. Forcipular trochanteroprefemur approximately 1.6 times longer than broad. Forcipular articles with evident sensillum coeloconicum on the internal side but no denticles (Fig. 2 H); tarsungulum moderately curved, with smooth internal margin. Denticle at the base of the tarsungulum conspicuous, with rounded apex. Calyx of venom gland ovoid to hemispheric in shape, located mostly in the femoroid (Fig. 2 G).</p><p>Trunk (Fig. 3): Tergites wider than long, without grooves or sulci, indistinctly reticulated and moderately setose. Walking legs largely homonomous along the entire trunk. Pretarus claw-shaped, basally armed with a small accessory spine. Presternites well-developed, divided along the entire trunk. Metasternites sub-trapezoidal. First metasternite with central cluster of pores (Fig. 3 A). Second to penultimate metasternite with evident, well-developed pore fields. Anterior metasternites (2–15) with single, spindle-shaped pore field located in the posterior half. Carpophagus structures present on metasternites 2–15, poorly sclerotized but evident, with pits occupying approximately one third of the anterior metasternite edge andfinely reticulated pegs present on the posterior metasternite edge. Posterior metasternites elongated, approximately 1.4–1.6 times longer than broad and with two small, approximately circular pore fields located in the posterior third.</p><p>Last leg-bearing segment (Fig. 4): Ultimate pleuropretergite complete. Ultimate metatergite 1.2 times broader than long, with gently curved, convex posterior margin. Ultimate metasternite trapezoidal, 1.4 (female) to 1.46 (male) times broader than long, with straight posterior margin. Coxopleurae moderately enlarged, with 3–6 coxal pores scattered on the ventral surface of the coxopleuron. One isolated pore opening posteriorly, of the same size as the other coxal pores. Telopodite gracile in female holotype (4.3 times longer than metasternite) and slightly swollen in male paratype (4.8 times longer than metasternite), more densely setose on the ventral side and ending with a strong, curved pretarsus with a small accessory spine.</p><p>Postpedal segments (Fig. 4): Female with weakly bilobed gonopodal lamina. Male with strongly setose biarticulate gonopods flanking the penis. Anal pores distinct, opening near the margin of the anal valves.</p><p>Etymology.</p><p>Derived from the Latin term for “ deceptive ” (“ captiosus ”) due to its initial misidentification as a species of Pachymerium C. L. Koch, 1847, based on superficial morphological characters.</p><p>Remarks.</p><p>G. captiosus sp. nov. most closely resembles G. flavus, G. tenuis sp. nov., and G. zagreus in external morphology, sharing with these three congeners the elongation of the proximal antennal articles, the presence of one or more clypeal areas, the presence of lappets on the first maxillae, incomplete chitin lines on the forcipular coxosternite, the presence of a denticle at the base of the forcipular tarsungulum, and tarsungula that conspicuously project over the anterior margin of the head (Table 1). It can be distinguished from G. tenuis sp. nov. by the greater elongation of the antennae relative to the cephalic plate (4.5 times longer than cephalic plate in G. captiosus sp. nov.; 3.6 times in G. tenuis sp. nov.) and the arrangement of the coxal pores (scattered over entire ventro-lateral surface of coxopleuron in G. captiosus sp. nov.; opening near the edge of the metasternite in G. tenuis sp. nov.). It can be distinguished from G. zagreus by its smaller adult body size (&lt;25 mm in G. captiosus sp. nov.; 30–63 mm in G. zagreus), smaller number of leg-bearing segments (45–47 in G. captiosus sp. nov.; 51–53 in G. zagreus), more elongate cephalic plate (1.25 times longer than wide in G. captiosus sp. nov.; approximately as long as wide in G. zagreus), and greater number of tubercles on the mid-piece of the labrum (7–8 in G. captiosus sp. nov.; 3 in G. zagreus). Unlike G. flavus, G. captiosus sp. nov. does not have fine, irregular serrations on the internal edge of the tarsungulum or a reduced pretarsus on the ultimate leg telopodite. It can be additionally distinguished from G. flavus by the presence of a conspicuous isolated coxal pore and the distribution of the coxal pores (opening near the edge of the metasternite only in G. flavus). G. captiosus sp. nov. differs from G. pusillifrater and G. pygmaeus in the presence of clypeal areas, which the latter two species lack; the elongation of the antennae (not elongate in G. pygmaeus); the presence of first maxillary lappets (absent in G. pusillifrater); the presence of carpophagus structures (absent in G. pusillifrater); and its characteristic coxal pore arrangement, which differs from both species (Table 1). G. proximus resembles G. captiosus sp. nov. in the elongation of the cephalic plate and the presence of clypeal areas but can be readily distinguished from it by the morphology of its carpophagus structures (strongly sclerotized and consolidated sensu Crabill (1954) in G. proximus; unconsolidated sensu Crabill 1954 in G. captiosus sp. nov.), the elongation of its forcipules (tarsungula not protruding beyond the anterior margin of the head in G. proximus; protruding in G. captiosus sp. nov.), the absence of pore fields on the posterior trunk metasternites (present in G. captiosus sp. nov.), and the arrangement of the coxal organs. G. osquidatum and G. seurati similarly resemble G. captiosus sp. nov. in the presence of paired clypeal areas and the elongation of the antennae but can be readily distinguished from it by their characteristic, shared morphology of the last leg-pair pretarsus, which is reduced in size (conspicuous, not reduced in G. captiosus sp. nov.).</p><p>The arrangement of the coxal pores mirrors the condition of G. serbicus, a geographically proximate congener, which also resembles the two species here described in overall habitus (Stojanović et al. 2019). However, G. serbicus differs from G. captiosus sp. nov. in adult body length, number of leg-bearing segments, elongation of the antennae and cephalic capsule, clypeal morphology, and the arrangement of sternal pore fields (Table 1).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/9DCB1C9DC8C55396980F4384AFF68104	Public Domain	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.		Pensoft via Plazi	Popovici, George;Popa, Oana Paula;Iorgu, Elena Iulia	Popovici, George, Popa, Oana Paula, Iorgu, Elena Iulia (2026): Integrative taxonomy uncovers hidden diversity in Romanian Geophilus Leach, 1814 (Geophilomorpha, Geophilidae). Zoosystematics and Evolution 102 (2): 533-555, DOI: 10.3897/zse.102.177928
840BC7ADF83A56039D35270BDF451609.text	840BC7ADF83A56039D35270BDF451609.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Geophilus Leach 1814	<div><p>Genus Geophilus Leach, 1814</p><p>Type species.</p><p>Geophilus electricus Linnaeus, 1758</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/840BC7ADF83A56039D35270BDF451609	Public Domain	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.		Pensoft via Plazi	Popovici, George;Popa, Oana Paula;Iorgu, Elena Iulia	Popovici, George, Popa, Oana Paula, Iorgu, Elena Iulia (2026): Integrative taxonomy uncovers hidden diversity in Romanian Geophilus Leach, 1814 (Geophilomorpha, Geophilidae). Zoosystematics and Evolution 102 (2): 533-555, DOI: 10.3897/zse.102.177928
4AA7DD8ECCFE579386BAEEE29601CD3C.text	4AA7DD8ECCFE579386BAEEE29601CD3C.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Geophilus tenuis Popovici, Popa & Iorgu 2026	<div><p>Geophilus tenuis Popovici, Popa &amp; Iorgu sp. nov.</p><p>Material examined.</p><p>Holotype. Romania • ♀ (MNINGA CHI 108), Ilfov County, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=26.1141&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=44.5244" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 26.1141/lat 44.5244)">Voluntari</a> (44.5244°N, 26.1141°E), ca. 100 m asl., oak and hornbeam forest, upper soil layers, 16 April 2021, leg. G. Popovici .</p><p>Paratypes. Romania • 1 ♂ (MNINGA CHI 110), same as holotype, 23. 05. 2021; • 1 ♀ (MNINGA CHI 111), Ilfov County, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=26.1332&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=44.5191" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 26.1332/lat 44.5191)">Voluntari</a> (44.5191°N, 26.1332°E), ca. 90 m asl., 28 March 2021, leg. G. Popovici ; • 1 ♀ (MNINGA CHI 112), same as preceding, 04. 03. 2022; • 1 juvenile (MNINGA CHI 109), Ilfov County, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=26.0914&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=44.5221" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 26.0914/lat 44.5221)">Voluntari</a> (44.5221°N, 26.0914°E), ca. 100 m asl., 30 May 2021, leg. G. Popovici .</p><p>Other materials.</p><p>Romania • 17 ♂♂ ♀♀, (GP), same as holotype .</p><p>Diagnosis.</p><p>Characterized by the following unique combination of characters: Small-sized Geophilus species (adult body length ≤ 13 mm); 43–47 leg-bearing segments; antennae 3.5–3.8 times longer than cephalic plate, articles II – VII elongate, 1.6–1.74 times longer than wide; cephalic plate 1.18 times longer than broad; clypeus with two evident clypeal areas; forcipular coxosternite approximately as long as wide, with incomplete chitin lines; inner margin of forcipular tarsungulum without crenulation; metasternites 2–12 with unconsolidated (sensu Crabill 1954), faint carpophagus structures and spindle-shaped pore fields; posterior metasternites including the penultimate with two posterior clusters of pores; coxopleuron of last leg-bearing segment with coxal pores opening individually, near the edge of the metasternite, partially covered by it; one isolated coxal pore opening laterally to the others; telopodite of ultimate leg pair with claw-shaped pretarsus.</p><p>Description of examined material.</p><p>Habitus. 43–47 leg-bearing segments in examined specimens. Body length 10–13 mm. Color of preserved specimens pale yellow with darker cephalic plate and forcipular segment.</p><p>Head and antennae (Fig. 5): Cephalic plate approximately 1.18 times longer than broad (0.58 mm long, 0.5 mm wide) with distinct dorsal reticulation, straight posterior margin and absent basal plate. No paramedian or other sulci. Chaetotaxy illustrated in Fig. 5 B. Antennae 3.5–3.8 times longer than head (1.8–2.2 mm long) and distinctly elongate with basal antennal articles 1.6–1.74 times longer than wide. Dorsal chaetotaxy as in Fig. 5 C. Articles I – IX with 2– 3 type a sensilla basally, articles X – XIII with 1 type a sensillum basally (Fig. 5 C). Article XIV with lateral groups of sensilla basiconica occupying approximately 30 % of its length and with a small cluster of type b sensilla at its distal apex (Fig. 5 D).</p><p>Clypeus (Fig. 6 A, B): Clypeus uniformly reticulated, with two evident clypeal areas. With three pairs of setae, the postantennal and posterior being smaller than the intermediate pair. (Fig. 6 A). Clypeal areas lighter than surrounding cuticle, with indistinct but visible reticulation.</p><p>Labrum (Fig. 6 A, B): Labrum with distinct lateral parts. Intermediate part with 5–6 tubercles, but only 2–3 visibly well-sclerotized in the center. Lateral parts with 5–7 hyaline filaments.</p><p>Mandible (Fig. 6 E): One single pectinate lamella present on distal edge. Of a typical aspect for the genus.</p><p>First maxillae (Fig. 6 C, D). Coxosternite entire. Distinct, sub-triangular coxal projections with 3–4 sensilla trichodea and 1–3 sensilla microtrichodea on their ventral side. Coxosternal and telopodal lappets present, weakly developed (Fig. 6 D). Articulation of telopodite indistinct.</p><p>Second maxillae (Fig. 6 C, D). Coxosternite undivided, distinctly reticulated and with broadly concave anterior margin. Row of sensilla trichodea present medio-ventrally. Telopodite articles elongate (article I ca. 1.2, article II ca. 1.0, and article III ca. 1.7 times longer than wide) with distinct condyles and articulations. All articles with 1–3 sensilla coeloconica laterally. Pretarsus simple, claw-shaped with small pore opening distally (Fig. 6 D).</p><p>Forcipular segment (Fig. 7): Forcipular tergite anteriorly narrowing, trapeziform. Forcipular coxosternite approximately as wide as long. Chitin lines vanishing before reaching the condyles, pointing laterally to them. Anterior margin with a shallow but evident notch and without denticles. Isolated reticulation pattern and chaetotaxy as in Fig. 7 D. Forcipules extending slightly past the anterior margin of the cephalic plate when closed. Forcipular trochanteroprefemur ca. 1.3 times longer than wide. Denticle at the base of tarsungulum conspicuous, straight, with rounded apex. Tarsungulum with smooth inner margin. All forcipular articles present a prominent sensillum coeloconicum on the internal side but no denticles (Fig. 7 A, B). Calyx of venom gland oval, opening in femoroid (Fig. 7 C).</p><p>Trunk (Fig. 8). Tergites wider than long, without grooves or sulci, indistinctly reticulated and moderately setose. Walking legs largely homonomous along the entire trunk (Fig. 8 B). Pretarus claw-shaped, basally armed with a small accessory spine. Presternites well-developed, divided along the entire trunk. Metasternites sub-trapezoidal. First metasternite with central cluster of pores (Fig. 8 A). Pore fields present on all sternites excepting that of the ultimate leg-bearing segment. Anterior segments (2–15) with spindle-shaped, undivided pore fields. Carpophagus structures faint, present on sternites 2–12. Posterior metasternites elongate, 1.4–1.5 times longer than broad, and with two small, approximately circular pore fields located in the posterior third. All sternites with two converging rows of sensilla trichodea anteriorly and two pairs of large sensilla trichodea laterally.</p><p>Last leg-bearing segment (Figs 9 A, 9 B, 10): Ultimate pleuropretergite complete. Ultimate metatergite 1.2 times wider than long. Ultimate metasternite trapezoidal, ca. 1.5 times wider than long, with straight posterior margin. Coxopleurae moderately enlarged, with 2–3 coxal organs opening close to the edge of the metasternite, partly covered by it, and one isolated posterior pore, reduced in size. Telopodite elongate in female holotype (4.1 times longer than metasternite), more densely setose on the ventral side and ending in a strong, curved pretarsus provided with a small accessory spine. Telopodite moderately swollen in male paratype (4.2 times longer than metasternite), more densely setose on ventral side.</p><p>Postpedal segments (Figs 9 B, 10): Female with weakly bilobed gonopodal lamina (Fig. 9 B). Male with penis flanked by two biarticulate, densely setose gonopods (Fig. 10). Anal pores distinct, opening near the margin of the anal valves (covered by gonopods in male).</p><p>Juvenile. Clypeus with conspicuous, uniform reticulation (cells less numerous and larger relative to size of clypeus than in adults), resolving to smaller cells near the medial pair of setae (Fig. 6 B). Forcipular trochanteroprefemur approximately as long as wide (Fig. 7 E). Anterior metasternites with band of pores posteriorly. Posterior metasternites with pore fields indistinct (Fig. 8 C). Last leg-bearing segment coxopleuron with only the one isolated coxal pore present (Fig. 9 C). Gonopodal lamina indistinct.</p><p>Etymology.</p><p>Derived from the Latin term for “ meager ” or “ feeble ” (“ tenuis ”), in recognition of its morphological similarity to the initially recognized G. captiosus sp. nov. as well as its smaller body size and gracile habitus.</p><p>Remarks.</p><p>G. tenuis sp. nov. greatly resembles G. captiosus sp. nov. in overall morphology, with many differences between the two species known to be characters that vary with respect to body size in Geophilidae (Horneland and Meidell 2009; Gregory and Barber 2010; Peretti and Bonato 2016; Stojanović et al. 2020). A consistent morphological difference between the two not subject to allometric scaling is the arrangement of coxal pores, which open at the edges of the ultimate leg-bearing segment metasternite in G. tenuis sp. nov. and are scattered over the entire ventrolateral surface of the coxopleuron in G. captiosus sp. nov. (Figs 4, 9, 10, Table 1). G. pusillifrater overlaps in many morphological characters with G. tenuis sp. nov., both being small, oligopodous species (Stojanović et al. 2019). G. pusillifrater can be distinguished from G. tenuis sp. nov. by the absence of clypeal areas, first maxillary lappets, and carpophagus structures; the earlier mid-body transition in metasternal pore-field shape; the absence of pore fields on the posterior sternites; the lower number of coxal organs; and the sexually dimorphic condition of the male ultimate leg-pair pretarsus, which is reduced to a small tubercle (Lewis 1961; Eason 1964). G. pygmaeus similarly resembles G. tenuis sp. nov. in size, number of leg-bearing segments, and most other morphological characters (Peretti and Bonato 2016) but clearly differs from it in the elongation of the proximal antennal articles (not elongate), the absence of clypeal areas, the lower number of tubercles on the mid-piece of the labrum (two), and the arrangement of the coxal organs (one opening at the anterior tip of the coxopleuron, covered by presternites; an isolated coxal organ opening centrally on the coxopleuron, parallel with the posterior end of the line of coxal organs opening near the edge of the metasternite) (Table 1). Small specimens or juveniles of G. flavus may superficially overlap with G. tenuis sp. nov. in meristic or continuous characters that scale allometrically with body size but can be readily distinguished from the new species by the serrate inner edge of the tarsungulum (lacking serrations in G. tenuis sp. nov.), the lack of a conspicuous isolated coxal pore (present in G. tenuis sp. nov.), and the reduction of the last leg pretarsus (not reduced in size in G. tenuis sp. nov.). The species G. osquidatum, G. seurati, and G. zagreus are not known to overlap in adult body length or number of leg-bearing segments with G. tenuis sp. nov., but they are additionally distinguished from the new species in having serrations on the inner edge of the tarsungulum ( G. osquidatum, G. seurati), coxal pores that open across the entire ventral surface of the coxopleuron ( G. zagreus), no isolated coxal pore ( G. osquidatum, G. seurati), and a reduced last leg pretarsus ( G. osquidatum, G. seurati). G. tenuis sp. nov. can be distinguished from G. proximus by the morphology of the carpophagus structures (strongly sclerotized and consolidated sensu Crabill (1954) in G. proximus; unconsolidated sensu Crabill 1954 in G. tenuis sp. nov.), the elongation of its forcipules (tarsungula not protruding beyond the anterior margin of the head in G. proximus; protruding in G. tenuis sp. nov.), the absence of pore fields on the posterior trunk metasternites (present in G. tenuis sp. nov.), and the arrangement of the coxal organs.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/4AA7DD8ECCFE579386BAEEE29601CD3C	Public Domain	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.		Pensoft via Plazi	Popovici, George;Popa, Oana Paula;Iorgu, Elena Iulia	Popovici, George, Popa, Oana Paula, Iorgu, Elena Iulia (2026): Integrative taxonomy uncovers hidden diversity in Romanian Geophilus Leach, 1814 (Geophilomorpha, Geophilidae). Zoosystematics and Evolution 102 (2): 533-555, DOI: 10.3897/zse.102.177928
