identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
D8533F7D85E3544AB0010E112D6221FB.text	D8533F7D85E3544AB0010E112D6221FB.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Plusioglyphiulus battambangensis Likhitrakarn & Seesamut 2026	<div><p>Plusioglyphiulus battambangensis Likhitrakarn &amp; Seesamut sp. nov.</p><p>Figs 2 B, 8–11</p><p>Plusioglyphiulus sp. D 8: Seesamut et al. 2026: 9 (MI).</p><p>Type material.</p><p>Holotype. • ♂ (CUMZ -CAM 237), Cambodia, Battambang Province, Banan District, Phumi Thnong, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=102.92555&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=13.095555" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 102.92555/lat 13.095555)">Asram Kompir Temple (locality code C 105)</a>, 13°05'44"N, 102°55'32"E, 01. 08. 2024, leg. C. Sutcharit and R. Srisonchai . Paratypes. • 17 ♂, 35 ♀ (CUMZ -CAM 237), same locality, together with holotype .</p><p>Diagnosis.</p><p>This new species seems to be especially similar to Plusioglyphiulus parviserratus sp. nov. in both somatic characters and the structure of the posterior gonopods. Both species, however, can be distinguished by the carinotaxic formula of the collum: 1 a / t + 2 p / t + 3 p / t / (t) + 4 p / (t) / t + (ta) / tc / t + 5 p / (t) / t + ta / t + pp / t / t + m / m (Figs 8 A, 8 B, 9 B, 11 A – C, 11 F, 11 G) (compared to (1 a) / t + 2 p / t + 3 (3 p / t) + 4 (4 p / t) + ta / t + (5 p) / t / t + ta / t + pp / (t) / t + m / m (Figs 3 A, 3 B, 4 B, 6 A – C, 6 F, 6 G)), and by having the small second telopoditomere on the male legs 1 significantly smaller (Figs 9 D, 9 E, 10 A – C) (as opposed to larger (Figs 4 D, 4 E, 5 A – C)). Additionally, the posterior gonopod of the new species displays an elongated and slender paramedian coxal process (pp) (Figs 9 K, 10 L, 10 M), in contrast to the more stout one in P. parviserratus sp. nov. (Figs 4 K, 5 F, 5 K – M), also showing a narrow flagellum process (f) provided with a smooth upper margin (Figs 9 K, 9 L, 10 K – M) (vs broad and with a micro-serrate upper margin (Figs 4 K, 4 L, 5 E – G, 5 K – M) in P. parviserratus sp. nov.).</p><p>Description.</p><p>Length of holotype, 29.5 mm; adult paratypes 17.8–41.4 (♂) or 21.8–41.6 mm (♀) long; midbody rings round in cross-section (Fig. 8 F), their width (horizontal diameter) shorter than height (vertical diameter), width in holotype 2.2 mm; in paratypes 1.3–1.7 (♂), 1.1–1.9 mm (♀).</p><p>Coloration of live animals light brown (Fig. 2 B), with darker lateral sides and a narrow median line; head and anterior body rings (rings 1–5) usually darker brownish; antennae, venter, and legs light yellowish (Fig. 2 B). Coloration in alcohol, after two years of preservation (Fig. 8 A – I), faded to uniformly reddish brown or dark castaneous brown to grey-brown, with the median line, porosteles, and surrounding areas usually dark brownish (Fig. 8 A, B, D, E, G, H). Antennae and venter yellow-brownish to brownish (Fig. 8 A – C, E – G, I). Eyes dark brown to blackish (Fig. 8 A, C).</p><p>Adult body with 65 p + 4 a + T (holotype); paratypes with 53–79 p + 1 – 5 a + T (♂) and 54–76 p + 2 – 6 a + T (♀). Eye patches transversely ovoid, each provided with 8–12 flat ommatidia arranged in 2–3 longitudinal rows in adults (Figs 8 A, 8 C, 11 D, 11 E, 11 G). Clypeus with three teeth anteromedially (Figs 8 C, 11 D).</p><p>Antennae short and clavate (Figs 2 B, 8 A – C, 9 C, 11 A, 11 D – F), extending to ring 2 laterally; antennomeres 5 and 6 each with a small apicodorsal field or corolla of bacilliform sensilla (Fig. 9 C). Gnathochilarium oligotrichous, each lamella lingualis with 2–3 setae; promentum bare, separated from eumentum by a distinct transverse suture (n = 2) (Fig. 9 A).</p><p>Postcollum constriction evident, with the collum only moderately enlarged (Figs 2 B, 8 A – C, 11 B – F). Carinotaxic formula of collum: 1 a / t + 2 p / t + 3 p / t / (t) + 4 p / (t) / t + (ta) / tc / t + 5 p / (t) / t + ta / t + pp / t / t + ma / (ma) / m (Figs 8 A, 8 B, 9 B, 11 A – C, 11 F, 11 G). Carinotaxy of metatergum 2: 8 / 8 + m / m + 8 / 8; metatergum 3: 8 / 7 + m / m + 8 / 7; metatergum 4: 7 / 7 + m / m + 7 / 7 (Figs 8 A, 8 B, 11 A – C, 11 F, 11 G). Metatergal formula 5 and subsequent ones, except for the last few rings, usually 3 / 3 + I / i + 3 / 3 / 3 + m / m + 3 / 3 / 3 + I / i + 3 / 3 (Figs 8 A, 8 B, 8 D – H, 11 A – C); that of legless rings usually 7 + m + 7 (Fig. 8 G, H). All crests and tubercles rather low (Figs 8 A, 8 B, 8 D – H, 11 A – G). Porosteles large, low, conical, rounded, directed anterolaterad, and higher than wide (Figs 8 D – H, 11 A – C, 11 G). Midbody rings subcircular in cross-section, virtually uncompressed laterally (Fig. 8 F).</p><p>Tegument finely alveolate-areolate (Figs 8 A, 8 B, 8 D, 8 E, 8 G, 8 H, 11 A – C, 11 F, 11 G), dull throughout. Metatergal setae absent. Pleural regions of rings 2–4 elongated, flap-shaped, especially clearly so on ring 3 (Figs 8 A, 8 C, 11 A, 11 D).</p><p>Epiproct (Fig. 8 G – I) broadly rounded apically, with 2 + 2 paramedian tubercles, the inner pair being visibly larger than the outer ones. Paraprocts smooth, regularly convex, and densely setose (Fig. 8 G, I). Hypoproct transversely bean-shaped, concave posteriorly (Fig. 8 I).</p><p>Ventral flaps behind gonopod aperture on male ring 7 evident (Figs 8 A, 8 C, 11 A, 11 D), distinguishable as low swellings with rounded lobes bent abruptly posteriorly.</p><p>Legs short, ~ 2 / 3 as long as body diameter (Figs 8 F, 9 H); claw with a strong, spiniform accessory claw at base, the latter almost half as long as claw itself (Fig. 9 H).</p><p>Male legs 1 with a usual, prominent, and elongate central hook (actually a pair of tightly appressed hooks) regularly curved anteriorly; a pair of strong, sac-shaped, 2 - segmented telopodites nearly half as long as central hook (Figs 9 D, 9 E, 10 A – D), with a small second telopoditomere retained as a rudimentary knob (Figs 9 D, 9 E, 10 A – D).</p><p>Male legs 2 strongly incrassate, with high and large coxae; telopodites hirsute on anterior face; penes broad, oblong-subtrapeziform, fused at base (Figs 9 F, 11 D).</p><p>Male legs 3 modified as usual, with particularly elongate and slender coxae, and shortened telopodites (Figs 9 G, 11 D).</p><p>Anterior gonopods (Figs 9 I, 9 J, 10 E – J) rather complex; coxosternal halves in contact, but not completely fused medially (Figs 9 I, 9 J, 10 E, 10 F, 10 H, 10 I). Anterior coxosternal processes (cxp 1) forming a paramedian pair, long, slender, erect, setose only apically, and regularly curved anteriorly, resembling a bird’s head (Figs 9 J, 10 E, 10 G, 10 H, 10 J). Posterior coxosternal processes (cxp 2) higher, distally lamellate, with the apices rounded and turned laterally (Figs 9 I, 9 J, 10 E – J). Telopodites (te) club-shaped, subcylindrical, movable, 1 - segmented, apically setose, and shorter than cxp 2 (Figs 9 I, 9 J, 10 E – J).</p><p>Posterior gonopods (Figs 9 K, 9 L, 10 K – M) compact, shorter; coxosternum well separated from sternum, fused only basally. Each coxite with a long, slender, paramedian coxal process (pp) acute distally and directed laterally (Figs 9 K, 10 L, 10 M). Anterior coxal process (ap) lamellate, subquadrate (Figs 9 K, 9 L, 10 K – M), with a high, narrow flagellum process (f) with a smooth upper margin at its apex, the apex itself being distinctly revolute laterally (Figs 9 K, 9 L, 10 K – M). Telopodite (te) erect, elongate, membranous, apically rounded, with lateral margins slightly rugose, distinctly higher than both pp and ap (Figs 9 K, 9 L, 10 K – M).</p><p>Habitat.</p><p>The specimens were collected in the aphotic zone of the cave, ~ 20 m from the entrance, occurring on moist limestone floor. The cave environment maintains high humidity and stable ambient temperatures throughout the year, characteristic of the limestone karst systems in Battambang Province.</p><p>Etymology.</p><p>The specific epithet is a Latinized adjective derived from the type locality, Battambang Province, Cambodia, where the type series was collected; adjective.</p><p>Remarks.</p><p>Morphologically, Plusioglyphiulus battambangensis sp. nov. is remarkably similar to its congener, P. parviserratus sp. nov. Both new species share an extremely uniform habitus, a strong reduction in the number of ommatidia, and highly similar gonopod structures. Such profound morphological conservatism frequently makes phenotypic discrimination between closely related cavernicolous congeners particularly difficult. However, despite these superficial similarities, P. battambangensis sp. nov. can be separated from P. parviserratus sp. nov. by the specific carinotaxic ornamentation of the collum, as well as by the significantly stouter processes of the gonopods, both anterior and posterior.</p><p>Among the Cambodian congeners, Plusioglyphiulus battambangensis sp. nov. and P. parviserratus sp. nov. represent clear geographic isolates, being remarkably disjunct from the more southernly distributed cave-dwelling species such as P. boutini Mauriès, 1970, P. biserratus Likhitrakarn et al., 2020, and P. khmer Likhitrakarn et al., 2020 (Fig. 12). Most importantly, the independent status of P. battambangensis sp. nov. is strongly supported by our molecular analysis; the uncorrected pairwise p-distance at the COI barcode locus yields a significant divergence of 10.3 % from P. parviserratus sp. nov., a value fully corresponding to the stable species boundaries established for the family Cambalopsidae (Seesamut et al. 2026) .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/D8533F7D85E3544AB0010E112D6221FB	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	Likhitrakarn, Natdanai;Golovatch, Sergei I.;Srisonchai, Ruttapon;Thi, Sothearen;Chhin, Sophea;Lou, Vanny;Sinovas, Pablo;Jirapatrasilp, Parin;Sutcharit, Chirasak;Panha, Somsak;Seesamut, Teerapong	Likhitrakarn, Natdanai, Golovatch, Sergei I., Srisonchai, Ruttapon, Thi, Sothearen, Chhin, Sophea, Lou, Vanny, Sinovas, Pablo, Jirapatrasilp, Parin, Sutcharit, Chirasak, Panha, Somsak, Seesamut, Teerapong (2026): Integrated taxonomy of two new species of the millipede genus Plusioglyphiulus Silvestri, 1923 from Cambodia (Diplopoda, Spirostreptida). ZooKeys 1289: 237-269, DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.1289.204580
21DA0F5BEE17501AADB997CCE42254B5.text	21DA0F5BEE17501AADB997CCE42254B5.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Plusioglyphiulus biserratus Likhitrakarn, Golovatch, Thach, Chhuoy, Ngor, Srisonchai, Sutcharit & Panha 2020	<div><p>Plusioglyphiulus biserratus Likhitrakarn, Golovatch, Thach, Chhuoy, Ngor, Srisonchai, Sutcharit &amp; Panha, 2020</p><p>Plusioglyphiulus biserratus Likhitrakarn et al., 2020 a: 141 (D).</p><p>Remarks.</p><p>This distinct cavernicolous species was originally described from Phnom Kbal Romeas Cave in Tuek Chhou District, Kampot Province, southern Cambodia (Likhitrakarn et al. 2020 a). Based on topotypic material, P. biserratus is confirmed as a narrow endemic species strictly confined to its isolated type locality, underscoring a pronounced pattern of cave micro-endemism within the fragmented karst towers of Indochina. Despite its strict localization, the diagnostic features of this species remain exceptionally stable across all examined populations, standing out sharply from all other known Cambodian congeners by its unique male gonopods, particularly the simplified, single-structured anterior processes and the distinctly serrate apicolateral margins of the posterior gonopodal telopodites.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/21DA0F5BEE17501AADB997CCE42254B5	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	Likhitrakarn, Natdanai;Golovatch, Sergei I.;Srisonchai, Ruttapon;Thi, Sothearen;Chhin, Sophea;Lou, Vanny;Sinovas, Pablo;Jirapatrasilp, Parin;Sutcharit, Chirasak;Panha, Somsak;Seesamut, Teerapong	Likhitrakarn, Natdanai, Golovatch, Sergei I., Srisonchai, Ruttapon, Thi, Sothearen, Chhin, Sophea, Lou, Vanny, Sinovas, Pablo, Jirapatrasilp, Parin, Sutcharit, Chirasak, Panha, Somsak, Seesamut, Teerapong (2026): Integrated taxonomy of two new species of the millipede genus Plusioglyphiulus Silvestri, 1923 from Cambodia (Diplopoda, Spirostreptida). ZooKeys 1289: 237-269, DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.1289.204580
6B651AF81F0B53DDB68407C78E89281A.text	6B651AF81F0B53DDB68407C78E89281A.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Plusioglyphiulus boutini Mauries 1970	<div><p>Plusioglyphiulus boutini Mauriès, 1970</p><p>Plusioglyphiulus boutini Mauriès, 1970: 509 .</p><p>Plusioglyphiulus boutini — Hoffman 1977: 715; Mauriès 1983: 272; Boutin 2001: 1760; Jeekel 2004: 57; Golovatch et al. 2009: 72; 2011: 4; Likhitrakarn et al. 2015: 179; 2020 a: 139 (R, D, M).</p><p>Remarks.</p><p>This species was originally described from a cave ecosystem near Kampong Trach, Kampot Province, Cambodia (Mauriès 1970). The newly accumulated material documented herein was collected from Phnom Kampong Trach Cave and Prasat Phnom Totong Temple, located only ~ 17 km away from the type locality. As illustrated in our updated distribution map (Fig. 12), these new sampling sites are remarkably close to each other, confirming that the new specimens collected by Likhitrakarn et al. (2020 a) represent highly localized populations in immediate geographical proximity. The morphology of the newly examined specimens fully agrees with the original description and details provided by Mauriès (1970).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/6B651AF81F0B53DDB68407C78E89281A	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	Likhitrakarn, Natdanai;Golovatch, Sergei I.;Srisonchai, Ruttapon;Thi, Sothearen;Chhin, Sophea;Lou, Vanny;Sinovas, Pablo;Jirapatrasilp, Parin;Sutcharit, Chirasak;Panha, Somsak;Seesamut, Teerapong	Likhitrakarn, Natdanai, Golovatch, Sergei I., Srisonchai, Ruttapon, Thi, Sothearen, Chhin, Sophea, Lou, Vanny, Sinovas, Pablo, Jirapatrasilp, Parin, Sutcharit, Chirasak, Panha, Somsak, Seesamut, Teerapong (2026): Integrated taxonomy of two new species of the millipede genus Plusioglyphiulus Silvestri, 1923 from Cambodia (Diplopoda, Spirostreptida). ZooKeys 1289: 237-269, DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.1289.204580
D2FA8FC68B6959509B30524862264F99.text	D2FA8FC68B6959509B30524862264F99.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Plusioglyphiulus dubius (Attems 1938)	<div><p>Plusioglyphiulus dubius (Attems, 1938)</p><p>Glyphiulus dubius Attems, 1938: 272 (D).</p><p>Plusioglyphiulus dubius — Mauriès 1970: 510 (M); 1983: 272 (D); Hoffman 1977: 715 (M); Jeekel 2004: 57 (R); Golovatch et al. 2009: 74 (R); 2011: 4 (L, M); Likhitrakarn et al. 2015: 179 (L); 2020 a: 139 (L, M).</p><p>Remarks.</p><p>Attems (1938) originally described this species as Glyphiulus dubius based on a single female holotype obtained from Angkor, Cambodia. Mauriès (1983) subsequently noted a striking morphological resemblance between P. dubius and P. boutini Mauriès, 1970, distinguishing them primarily by the starting position of the divided dorsal crests (on body ring 6 in P. dubius vs ring 7 in P. boutini). However, because the diagnostic male material remains entirely unavailable, the definitive verification of this species is severely hindered. In the complete absence of male gonopod structures, which are critical for accurate generic and species placement, our current diagnosis must rely exclusively on overall somatic characters and body shape parameters. Until male topotypes are collected to clarify its true identity, P. dubius remains a species of doubtful status within the Cambodian fauna.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/D2FA8FC68B6959509B30524862264F99	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	Likhitrakarn, Natdanai;Golovatch, Sergei I.;Srisonchai, Ruttapon;Thi, Sothearen;Chhin, Sophea;Lou, Vanny;Sinovas, Pablo;Jirapatrasilp, Parin;Sutcharit, Chirasak;Panha, Somsak;Seesamut, Teerapong	Likhitrakarn, Natdanai, Golovatch, Sergei I., Srisonchai, Ruttapon, Thi, Sothearen, Chhin, Sophea, Lou, Vanny, Sinovas, Pablo, Jirapatrasilp, Parin, Sutcharit, Chirasak, Panha, Somsak, Seesamut, Teerapong (2026): Integrated taxonomy of two new species of the millipede genus Plusioglyphiulus Silvestri, 1923 from Cambodia (Diplopoda, Spirostreptida). ZooKeys 1289: 237-269, DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.1289.204580
FCC04BA66CA7542FA07D1B422C0ACB36.text	FCC04BA66CA7542FA07D1B422C0ACB36.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Plusioglyphiulus khmer Likhitrakarn, Golovatch, Thach, Chhuoy, Ngor, Srisonchai, Sutcharit & Panha 2020	<div><p>Plusioglyphiulus khmer Likhitrakarn, Golovatch, Thach, Chhuoy, Ngor, Srisonchai, Sutcharit &amp; Panha, 2020</p><p>Plusioglyphiulus khmer Likhitrakarn et al., 2020 a: 144 (D).</p><p>Remarks.</p><p>This remarkable species was originally described from Phnom Sorsia Temple Cave in Damnak Chang’aeur District, Kep Province, southern Cambodia (Likhitrakarn et al. 2020 a). The morphology of P. khmer is distinctive within the genus, being readily distinguished from all other known Cambodian congeners by its complete and entirely undivided longitudinal crests on the collum. This conspicuous configuration provides a strong diagnostic contrast to the regional congeners, which always show divided and incomplete crests. Furthermore, the species is characterized by a complex arrangement of long, slender coxosternal processes (cxp 1 and cxp 2) of the anterior gonopods.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/FCC04BA66CA7542FA07D1B422C0ACB36	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	Likhitrakarn, Natdanai;Golovatch, Sergei I.;Srisonchai, Ruttapon;Thi, Sothearen;Chhin, Sophea;Lou, Vanny;Sinovas, Pablo;Jirapatrasilp, Parin;Sutcharit, Chirasak;Panha, Somsak;Seesamut, Teerapong	Likhitrakarn, Natdanai, Golovatch, Sergei I., Srisonchai, Ruttapon, Thi, Sothearen, Chhin, Sophea, Lou, Vanny, Sinovas, Pablo, Jirapatrasilp, Parin, Sutcharit, Chirasak, Panha, Somsak, Seesamut, Teerapong (2026): Integrated taxonomy of two new species of the millipede genus Plusioglyphiulus Silvestri, 1923 from Cambodia (Diplopoda, Spirostreptida). ZooKeys 1289: 237-269, DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.1289.204580
52245CC146C45D82BA7A00A5C1751D16.text	52245CC146C45D82BA7A00A5C1751D16.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Plusioglyphiulus parviserratus Likhitrakarn & Seesamut 2026	<div><p>Plusioglyphiulus parviserratus Likhitrakarn &amp; Seesamut sp. nov.</p><p>Figs 2 A, 3–7</p><p>Plusioglyphiulus sp. D 9: Seesamut et al. 2026: 9 (MI).</p><p>Type material.</p><p>Holotype. • ♂ (CUMZ -CAM 236), Cambodia, Battambang Province, Banan District, Phum Thmei, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=103.05889&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=13.074166" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 103.05889/lat 13.074166)">Wat La-ang Phnom Takream (locality code C 104)</a>, 13°04'27"N, 103°03'32"E, 01. 08. 2024, leg. C. Sutcharit and R. Srisonchai . Paratypes. • 26 ♂, 43 ♀ (CUMZ -CAM 236), same locality, together with holotype .</p><p>Diagnosis.</p><p>This new species seems to be especially closely related to Plusioglyphiulus likhitrakarni Golovatch, Geoffroy, Mauriès &amp; VandenSpiegel, 2011, a species described from eastern Thailand, sharing with the latter congener the highly similar general somatic characters and gonopod configuration. Both species, however, can be distinguished by a lower number of ommatidia rows, each eye patch with only 7–16 ommatidia arranged in 2–3 longitudinal rows (Figs 3 A, 3 C, 6 C – E, 6 G) (vs 15–22 ocelli arranged in 5–6 longitudinal rows in P. likhitrakarni), and by the distinct carinotaxic formula of the collum: (1 a) / t + 2 p / t + 3 (3 p / t) + 4 (4 p / t) + ta / t + (5 p) / t / t + ta / t + pp / (t) / t + m / m (Figs 3 A, 3 B, 4 B, 6 A – C, 6 F, 6 G) (compared to // (t) + 1 p / t // t + / (t) / t + 2 p // t + / (t) / t + 3 p // (t) / t + / (t) / t + 4 p / (t) / t + pp / t (or pp / (t) / t) + / ma / ma / m in P. likhitrakarni). They also differ in the carinotaxy of the midbody metaterga, with the formula of metatergum 5 and subsequent ones, except for the last few rings, usually following the pattern of 3 / 3 + I / i + 3 / 3 / 3 + m / m (Figs 3 A, 3 B, 3 D – H, 6 A – C) (as opposed to 4 / 4 + I / i + 3 / 3 / 3 + m / m in P. likhitrakarni). Furthermore, the telopodites of male legs 1 are distinctly 2 - segmented (Figs 4 D, 4 E, 5 A – D) (vs 1 - segmented in P. likhitrakarni), and the anterior coxosternal processes (cxp 1) of the anterior gonopods are regularly curved anteriorly, vividly resembling a bird’s head (Figs 4 I, 4 J, 5 E – J), whereas they are characteristically contiguous and digitiform in P. likhitrakarni .</p><p>Description.</p><p>Length of holotype, 28.2 mm; of adult paratypes, 19.4–35.3 mm (♂) or 20.5–40.4 mm (♀); midbody rings round in cross-section (Fig. 3 F), their width (horizontal diameter) and height (vertical diameter) similar, width in holotype 1.6 mm; paratypes 1.3–1.8 mm (♂) or 1.6–1.9 mm (♀).</p><p>Coloration of live animals light brown (Fig. 2 A), with darker lateral sides and a narrow median line; head and anterior body rings (rings 1–6) usually darker brownish; antennae, venter, and legs light yellowish (Fig. 2 A). Coloration in alcohol, after two years of preservation (Fig. 3 A – I), fading to uniformly reddish brown or dark castaneous brown to grey-brown, with the median line, porosteles, and surrounding areas usually dark brownish (Fig. 3 A, B, D, E, G, H); antennae and venter yellow-brownish to brownish (Fig. 3 A – C, E – G, I); eyes dark brown to blackish (Fig. 3 A, C).</p><p>Adult body with 50 p + 4 a + T (holotype); paratypes with 53–74 p + 1 – 5 a + T (♂) or 54–79 p + 2 – 3 a + T (♀). Eye patches transversely ovoid, with 7–16 flat ommatidia arranged in 2–3 longitudinal rows (Figs 3 A, 3 C, 6 A, 6 D, 6 E, 6 G). Clypeus with three teeth anteromedially (Figs 3 C, 6 D, 6 E).</p><p>Antennae short and clavate (Figs 3 A – C, 4 C, 6 A, 6 D, 6 E, 6 G), extending to ring 2 laterally, antennomeres 5 and 6 each with a small apicodorsal field or corolla of bacilliform sensilla (Fig. 4 C). Gnathochilarium oligotrichous, each lamella lingualis with 2–3 setae; promentum bare, separated from eumentum by a distinct transverse suture (n = 2) (Fig. 4 A).</p><p>Postcollum constriction evident, but collum moderately enlarged (Figs 2 A, 3 B, 3 C, 6 A – F). Carinotaxic formula of collum: (1 a) / t + 2 p / t + 3 (3 p / t) + 4 (4 p / t) + ta / t + (5 p) / t / t + ta / t + pp / (t) / t + ma / m (Figs 3 A, 3 B, 4 B, 6 A – C, 6 F, 6 G). Carinotaxy of metatergum 2: 8 / 8 + m / m + 8 / 8; metatergum 3: 8 / 7 + m / m + 8 / 7; metatergum 4: 7 / 7 + m / m + 7 / 7 (Figs 3 A, 3 B, 6 A – C, 6 F, 6 G). Metatergal formula 5 and subsequent ones, except for the last few rings, usually 3 / 3 + I / i + 3 / 3 / 3 + m / m + 3 / 3 / 3 + I / i + 3 / 3 (Figs 3 A, 3 B, 3 D – H, 6 A – C); that of legless rings usually 7 + m + 7 (Fig. 5 G, H). All crests and tubercles rather low (Figs 3 A, 3 B, 3 D – H, 6 A – C, 6 F, 6 G). Porosteles large, low, conical, rounded, directed anterolaterad, and higher than wide (Figs 3 A, 3 B, 3 D – H, 6 A – C). Midbody rings subcircular in cross-section, virtually uncompressed laterally (Fig. 3 F).</p><p>Tegument finely alveolate-areolate (Figs 3 A, 3 B, 3 D, 3 E, 3 G, 3 H, 6 A – C, 6 F, 6 G), dull throughout. Metatergal setae absent. Pleural regions of rings 2–4 elongated, flap-shaped, especially prominent on ring 3 (Figs 3 A, 3 C, 6 A, 6 D).</p><p>Epiproct (Fig. 3 G, H) broadly rounded apically, with 2 + 2 paramedian tubercles, the median tubercles larger than the lateral ones. Paraprocts smooth, regularly convex, and densely setose (Fig. 3 G, I). Hypoproct transversely bean-shaped, concave posteriorly (Fig. 3 I).</p><p>Ventral flaps behind gonopod aperture on male ring 7 evident (Figs 3 A, 3 C, 6 A, 6 D), distinguishable as low swellings with rounded lobes bent abruptly posteriorly.</p><p>Legs short, ~ 2 / 3 as long as body diameter (Figs 3 F, 4 H); claw with a strong, spiniform, accessory claw at base, the latter almost half as long as claw itself (Fig. 4 H).</p><p>Male legs 1 with a usual, strong, and long central hook (actually a pair of tightly appressed hooks) regularly curved anteriorly; a pair of strong, sac-shaped, 2 - segmented telopodites nearly half as long as central hook (Figs 4 D, 4 E, 5 A – D, 7 E – H), with a small second telopoditomere retained as a rudimentary knob (Figs 4 D, 4 E, 5 A – C).</p><p>Male legs 2 strongly enlarged, with high and large coxae; telopodites hirsute on anterior face; penes broad, oblong-subtrapeziform, fused at base (Figs 4 F, 6 D, 7 E, 7 I).</p><p>Male legs 3 modified as usual, with particularly elongate and slender coxae, and shortened telopodites (Figs 4 G, 6 D, 7 E, 7 J).</p><p>Anterior gonopods (Figs 4 I, 4 J, 5 E – J) rather complex; coxosternal halves in contact, but not completely fused medially (Figs 4 I, 4 J, 5 E, 5 H, 5 I). Anterior coxosternal processes (cxp 1) forming a paramedian pair, long, slender, erect, setose only apically, and regularly curved anteriorly, resembling a bird’s head (Figs 4 J, 5 E, 5 G, 5 H, 5 J). Posterior coxosternal processes (cxp 2) higher, distally lamellate, with the apices rounded and turned laterally (Figs 4 I, 4 J, 5 F, 5 H, 5 I). Telopodites (te) club-shaped, subcylindrical, movable, 1 - segmented, apically setose, and shorter than cxp 2 (Figs 4 I, 4 J, 5 E – J).</p><p>Posterior gonopods (Figs 4 K, 4 L, 5 E – G, 5 K – M) compact, shorter; coxosternum well separated from sternum, fused only basally. Each coxite with an evident, stout, paramedian coxal process (pp) acute distally and directed laterally (Figs 4 K, 5 F, 5 K – M). Anterior coxal process (ap) lamellate, subquadrate (Figs 4 K, 4 L, 5 E – G, 5 K – M), bearing a high, broad flagellum process (f) with the apex distinctly revolute laterally and a micro-serrate upper margin. (Figs 4 K, 4 L, 5 E – G, 5 K – M). Telopodite (te) elongate, membranous, apically rounded, with lateral margins slightly rugose, distinctly higher than both pp and ap (Figs 4 K, 4 L, 5 E – G, 5 K – M).</p><p>Habitat.</p><p>The specimens were collected in the dark zone of the cave, exclusively on bat guano deposits. The cave environment maintains high humidity and stable ambient temperatures throughout the year, characteristic of the limestone karst systems in Battambang Province, Cambodia.</p><p>Etymology.</p><p>The specific epithet is a Latinized adjective derived from a combination of the Latin prefix parvi - (meaning small) and the adjective serratus (meaning saw-like), highlighting the distinct micro-serrate upper margin of the broad flagellum process (f) of the posterior gonopods; adjective.</p><p>Remarks.</p><p>Morphologically, Plusioglyphiulus parviserratus sp. nov. seems to be especially similar to P. likhitrakarni, a congener originally described from eastern Thailand, with which it shares a remarkably similar general somatic characters and the basic structure of the gonopods. However, the new species is readily distinguishable from P. likhitrakarni by its unique carinotaxic pattern on the collum and midbody metaterga, as well as a significantly reduced number of ommatidia.</p><p>This sharp morphological differentiation is robustly supported by molecular data; the uncorrected pairwise p - distance between P. parviserratus sp. nov. and P. likhitrakarni at the COI barcode locus yields a significant divergence of 9.9 % (Table 1). Although this value closely approaches the lower threshold of the typical interspecific distances separating valid congeners within Plusioglyphiulus (which generally range between 11.4 % and 18.2 %, with a mean interspecific divergence of 14.5 % – 15.1 % depending on the species group (Seesamut et al. 2026)), such a substantial genetic gap coupled with the diagnostic boundaries fully corroborates the independent evolutionary status of the newly described taxon.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/52245CC146C45D82BA7A00A5C1751D16	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	Likhitrakarn, Natdanai;Golovatch, Sergei I.;Srisonchai, Ruttapon;Thi, Sothearen;Chhin, Sophea;Lou, Vanny;Sinovas, Pablo;Jirapatrasilp, Parin;Sutcharit, Chirasak;Panha, Somsak;Seesamut, Teerapong	Likhitrakarn, Natdanai, Golovatch, Sergei I., Srisonchai, Ruttapon, Thi, Sothearen, Chhin, Sophea, Lou, Vanny, Sinovas, Pablo, Jirapatrasilp, Parin, Sutcharit, Chirasak, Panha, Somsak, Seesamut, Teerapong (2026): Integrated taxonomy of two new species of the millipede genus Plusioglyphiulus Silvestri, 1923 from Cambodia (Diplopoda, Spirostreptida). ZooKeys 1289: 237-269, DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.1289.204580
