Strigamia epileptica Wood, 1862, Wood, 1862

Bonato, Lucio, Dányi, László, Socci, Antonio Augusto & Minelli, Alessandro, 2012, Species diversity of Strigamia Gray, 1843 (Chilopoda: Linotaeniidae): a preliminary synthesis, Zootaxa 3593, pp. 1-39: 13-14

publication ID

http://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.214898

publication LSID

lsid:zoobank.org:pub:56D84A4E-E8A7-4C78-8C58-F85BAA13B9DF

persistent identifier

http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03A2607E-8763-FF89-B398-F981FE32FD2A

treatment provided by

Plazi

scientific name

Strigamia epileptica Wood, 1862
status

 

Strigamia epileptica Wood, 1862  

Synonyms: Scolioplanes imperialis Brölemann, 1896   ; Linotaenia rubelliana Chamberlin, 1904   .

References for morphology: Wood 1862, 1865; Brölemann 1896 (sub Scolioplanes imperialis   ); Chamberlin 1904 (sub Linotaenia rubelliana   ), 1912 b (sub Linotaenia laevipes   ), 1954.

Taxonomic notes. Described originally as a species of Strigamia   , it was then assigned also to Linotaenia   , Scolioplanes   or Tomotaenia. Chamberlin (1912 b, 1954, 1963) considered S. epileptica   as identical with two other species described by Wood in the same paper ( Wood 1862), namely S. laevipes   and S. parviceps   , and adopted first S. laevipes   and later S. parviceps   as the valid name for the species. Conversely, Crabill (1954 a, 1962 a) suggested adopting S. epileptica   as the valid name because S. parviceps   is actually of uncertain taxonomic position (see below under “Uncertain species”), while he did not take into account S. laevipes   . Subsequent catalogues followed either Chamberlin’s later opinion ( Kevan 1983; Mercurio 2010) or Crabill’s ( Hoffman 1995). We agree with Crabill’s proposal in selecting S. epileptica   as the valid name of the species, because it remains uncertain whether the name S. parviceps   was originally applied to the same species (see below), whereas S. laevipes   is recognized here as a distinct species.

Scolioplanes imperialis   was described by Brölemann (1896) and Linotaenia rubelliana   by Chamberlin (1904). Both were considered identical to S. epileptica   by Chamberlin (1912 b), who confirmed this opinion after examining the holotype of S. epileptica   ( Chamberlin 1954, 1963), irrespective of the fact that he did not adopt S. epileptica   as the valid name of the species (see above). Instead, Attems (1929) maintained both S. imperialis   and L. rubelliana   as distinct valid species, and Crabill (1962 a) considered them of uncertain identity. The synonymy is confirmed here for both species because their type specimens, based on the published descriptions ( Brölemann 1896; Chamberlin 1904, 1963) are fully congruent with S. epileptica   , also in some major diagnostic features of the latter including number of legs, aspect of pleuropretergite, shape of ultimate metasternite and arrangement of coxal pores.

Distribution: most of the western part of North America, along the Rocky Mountains, between British Columbia and California. Published records from more eastern regions need confirmation, because of possible confusion with other species.