Scorpiops Peters, 1861

Tang, Victoria, 2022, Scorpions of China: an updated checklist with comments on some taxonomic issues (Arachnida: Scorpiones), Euscorpius 355, pp. 1-18 : 2-4

Genus Scorpiops Peters, 1861

The Asian genus Scorpiops is of the highest richness in China, however, identity of some species is doubtful. Kovařík et al. (2020) synonymized several genera with this genus based on extensive morphological comparison, including one that is found in China ( Euscorpiops Vachon, 1980 ). The present contribution will follow the genus-level taxonomy proposed by these authors. The records of Scorpiops asthenurus Pocock, 1900 and S. kamengensis ( Bastawade, 2006) are taken from the map in Di & Qiao (2020a), despite the fact that the Chinese specimens of these two species are poorly known. Similarly, for S. leptochirus Pocock, 1893 , also a little-known species in China, the data taken from Di & Qiao (2020b). The records of S. petersii Pocock, 1893 are taken from Di et al. (2013b); this taxon was initially recorded by Kishida (1939), although Di et al. (2013b) could not confidently distinguish their Chinese specimens from S. hardwickii (Gervais, 1843) , except for the larger size (which is variable).

Di et al. (2011a) published a description of an unidentified “ Scorpiops sp. ” based on two juvenile specimens from the Huzhaoshan Mountains in Jingshan County, Hubei Province (collected on 3 June 2007) which was considered to be belonging to the “ hardwickii ” complex based on the following characters: 6–8 ventral and 17 external trichobothria on the patella; pectinal teeth count (below,PTC) 4–9; pectines without fulcra; chela manus length to width ratio about 1; tegument coarse. The specimens were compared to S. jendeki due to their close geographical proximity but differed as follows: carapace more granular than in S. jendeki ; dorsoexternal carinae on pedipalp chelae more developed than in S. jendeki ; pedipalp movable finger with a basal lobe proximally (cutting edge flexed/curved) (vs. absence of a lobe in S. jendeki ). Although Di et al. (2011a) suggested that the specimens belonged to the “ hardwickii ” complex, their locality was far from the known range of that complex (the geographically closest species, S. langxian , is found about 1775 km away). With all these diagnostic characters and the isolated distribution, no formal name was designated for the Hubei specimens in the original publication since they were juvenile.Li (2016) mentioned these specimens in a book Scorpion Biology and Toxins (published in Chinese) and offered the name “ Scorpiops jingshanensis ” (published in Latin), as a “new species” (roughly translated here from Chinese):

“The collectors, Dr. Xie Guangling, along with his students, discovered and collected two scorpion specimens during their internship in Huzhaoshan [Mountains]. Since the specimens were small and the genitals were destroyed by the needle, the maturity cannot be determined. They were not named in the report by Di et al. (2011a), but only described as a euscorpiid species newly recorded from Central China. Fet and Louren Ç o (pers. comm., 2012) considered that the specimens should be examined based on the re-analysis of S. hardwickii , and they both thought it could be a new species as speculated from the geography.”

However, since no description was published by Li (2016) together with the new name he offered, the name “ Scorpiops jingshanensis Li, 2016 ” is not available according to ICZN publication criteria (Article 13); this name represents a nomen nudum and does not enter synonymy. At the same time, the Hubei population of Scorpiops in China is intriguing, and likely indeed represents a new species. Recent reports by the local people suggest that this genus occurs in both Hubei and adjacent Chongqing Provinces in central China, where it is found mainly along the river system. Future collections of adult specimens would provide a more comprehensive and formal description of this taxon .

Two species synonymized by Kovařík et al. (2020), namely Scorpiops atomatus Qi, Zhu & Lourenço, 2005 and S. validus (Di et al., 2010) , are retained in our list and the map for the purpose of providing the geographical information ( Fig. 2 ), but not formally revalidated. S. atomatus was synonymized with S. tibetanus Hirst, 1911 without studying holotype or topotypes. The only reason for synonymization mentioned by Kovařík et al. (2020) was that the measurement of pedipalp chela by Di et al. (2010) was incorrect. Judging from the original descriptions, both the numbers of ventral trichobothria of pedipalp patella and PTC fall in the range of S. tibetanus . However, the total length of Scorpiops atomatus is much smaller (♂ 34.94 mm and ♀ 36.48 mm) and was considered in the original diagnostic keys. Zhiyong Di (pers. comm.), who had checked S. atomatus types, believes that it is distinct from S. tibetanus .

Scorpiops validus (Di et al., 2010) was synonymized with S. vachoni ( Qi et al., 2005) by Kovařík et al. (2020), also based only on the original descriptions. The ratio of pedipalp chela S. vachoni was most certainly mismeasured by Qi et al. (2005), and several characters of both species overlap with each other (e.g., total length, number of ventral and external patellar trichobothria, and PTC). Nevertheless, Kovařík et al. (2020) synonymized the two species without studying the type specimens. At the same time, the morphometric values of Scorpiops puerensis (Di et al., 2010) also overlap with that of S. validus except for the length/width ratio of pedipalp chela, yet Kovařík et al. (2020) maintained it valid in their revision. Di (pers. comm.) suggested that S. vachoni and S. validus differ from each other in the shape of pedipalp chela (rounded in S. vachoni , and dorsoventrally flattened in S. validus ) but not in the length/width ratio. Since Kovařík et al. (2020) have not studied the types or topotypes (the type localities of these two species are distant from each other), these two species are retained in this paper for the purposes of the faunal list and distributional map. We do not formally restore S. atomatus and S. validus from synonymy since for a definitive conclusion one needs to examine the types. However, if the subsequent study on the holotype or the topotypes confirms the synonymy of S. atomatus and S. validus , the validity of other species (e.g., S. puerensis ) could also be questioned. Nevertheless, in the current checklist, all these dubious species are listed and illustrated separately for distributional information.

According to Kovařík et al. (2020), one male paratype of Scorpiops vachoni from Bayi Town, Linzhi District, Xizang, was inferred as a different species, which, very likely, was S. novaki (Kovařík, 2005) . However, since the specimen was not studied, it is included in our list as S. vachoni (a dubious record). The species of Scorpiops are very uniform, and important diagnostic characters can either overlap interspecifically (e.g., number of trichobothria) or be easily influenced by the consistency of measuring method used by different authors (e.g., for length/width ratio of pedipalp chela, a slight deviation of angle could lead to a great difference), therefore pending further reanalysis based on DNA sequence comparisons.

Most recently, Lourenço & Ythier (2022) revalidated five taxonomic groups at the subgeneric level in addition to the nominotypical subgenus: Alloscorpiops Vachon, 1980 , Euscorpiops Vachon, 1980 , Neoscorpiops Vachon, 1980 , Dasyscorpiops Vachon, 1974 and Plethoscorpiops Lourenço, 2017 . However, this revalidation also needs further confirmation. Regarding subgenera (which by now are all but eliminated from scorpion taxonomy), Lourenço & Ythier (2022) quoted Bernardi (1983) who “...insists about the usefulness of retaining this category, when it is well defined, and in particular for genera containing several groups of species forming small evolutionary lineages, which is the case of Scorpiops within the Scorpiopidae ...”. The “small evolutionary lineages” (an undefined term), however, have never been confirmed genetically in the family Scorpiopidae . At the same time, the genus Scorpiops sensu lato ( Scorpiopidae , excluding Parascorpiops Banks, 1928 ) was already found to be polyphyletic ( Šťáhlavský et al., 2020), while Lourenço & Ythier (2022) had neither provided the subgeneric keys at the morphological level or supported their revalidation with DNA analysis. Therefore, the subgenera of Scorpiops will not be listed in this paper. The genus Scorpiops appears to be more widely distributed than currently known; several new localities have been recorded from the central China (Tang, in prep.).

Genera Mesobuthus Vachon, 1950 and Olivierus

Figures

Figure 2. Map showing known distribution of the parvorder Iurida in China: Scorpiops (solid circle), Liocheles (star), “Tibetiomachus” (triangle), and Deccanometrus (square). Scorpiops asthenurus (●), S. atomatus (●, one largely covered by S. asthenurus), S. hardwickii (●), S. ingens (●), S. jendeki (●), “S. jingshanensis” (●), S. kamengensis (●), S. kubani (●), S. langxian (●, largely covered by S. atomatus and S. hardwickii), S. leptochirus (●), S. lhasa (●), S. lii (●), S. luridus (●, largely covered by S. atomatus), S. margerisonae (●), S. novaki (●, one largely covered by S. asthenurus), S. petersii (●, accurate location unknown), S. puerensis (●), S. shidian (●), S. songi (●), S. taxkorgan (●), S. tibetanus (●, one largely covered by S. lhasa and S. margerisonae, and another by S. langxian), S. vachoni (●, one largely covered by S. langxian), S. validus (●), S. wrzecionkoi (, largely covered by S. tibetanus), S. xui (●), S. yangi (●), S. zhangshuyuani (○); Liocheles. australasiae (★); “Tibetiomachus himalayensis” (▲);Deccanometrus bengalensis (■).