Sterropristes Attems, 1934

Muadsub, Sawitree, Sutcharit, Chirasak, Pimvichai, Piyatida & Enghoff, Henrik, 2012, Revision of the rare centipede genus Sterropristes Attems, 1934, with description of a new species from Thailand (Chilopoda: Scolopendromorpha: Scolopendridae), Zootaxa 3484, pp. 35-52 : 36-37

Genus Sterropristes Attems, 1934

Sterropristes Attems, 1934: 43 –47. Verhoeff, 1937: 201, 202. Schileyko, 1997: 34. Malaccolabis Verhoeff, 1937: 201 . Type species: Malaccolabis metallica Verhoeff, 1937 , by monotypy. Schileyko and Pavlinov, 1997: 34. Syn. nov.

Type species. Sterropristes sarasinorum Attems, 1934 , by monotypy.

Diagnosis. The unique distinguishing character of Sterropristes is the saw-like internal margin of the forcipular tarsungula. Other characters include basally wide, dorso-ventrally flattened antennae; tergite 1 abutting the cephalic plate; forcipular coxosternal tooth plate with 4+4 teeth; forcipular trochanteroprefemora without processes; tergites from at least T6 to T20 and sternites from at least S13 to S19 with complete paramedian sutures; spiracular apertures oval, spiracles present on trunk segment 7; coxopleura of ultimate legs truncated, without processes and spines; ultimate legs short, thickened; prefemora without spines; distal part of femora with a groove on their dorsal sides; ventral side of either tibiae or tarsi (or both) prominently convex; pretarsi longer than second tarsi.

Remarks. The traditional classification of the Scolopendridae is based on morphological characters, for example, the shape of the spiracle and the presence or absence of three-flapped valves in it, the presence and shape of coxopleural processes, and details of spinulation of the ultimate legs ( Attems, 1930). The classification of Sterropristini as a group at the tribe or subfamily level particularly emphasizes serrated margins of the forcipular tarsungula ( Verhoeff, 1937). Schileyko (1992) proposed a new classification of the Scolopendromorpha , placing particular weight on the number of body segments and presence of a spiracle on trunk segment 7 ( Fig. 1 C, F, I). The name Sterropristinae was applied therein to a group united by a spiracle on segment 7, that group then being subdivided into Ethmostigmini ( Ethmostigmus , Rhysida and Alluropus ) and Arrhabdotini ( Edentistoma , Sterropristes and Malaccolabis ). Schileyko and Pavlinov (1997) presented a cladistic analysis of Scolopendromorpha in which Sterropristes and Malaccolabis formed a clade that was sister-group to Edentistoma Tömösváry, 1882 (= Arrhabdotus Attems, 1930), another deviating monotypic scolopendromorph genus (see Lewis, 1981b). Recent analyses of either morphological data ( Edgecombe and Koch 2008, 2009; Koch et al. 2009; Vahtera et al. 2012b) or molecular data analyzed either on their own or in combination with morphology ( Vahtera et al. 2012a) have not supported Schileyko and Pavlinov’s findings with respect to a taxonomic separation between Otostigmini and “Ethmostigmini”, and the value of a spiracle on segment 7 as a high-level taxonomic character in Scolopendromorpha has been called into question ( Di et al. 2010). Although the exact position of Sterropristini in the phylogeny of Scolopendridae remains unsettled, the ovate outline of the spiracles and their strongly humped atrial wall and floor ( Fig. 1 ) are consistent with membership in Otostigminae.

Verhoeff (1937) erected the monotypic genus Malaccolabis for material from Penang Hill, Penang, Malaysia. However, on the basis of the newly collected specimens (including topotypes of M. metallica ) and re-study of pertinent type material we treat Malaccolabis Verhoeff, 1937 as a junior subjective synonym of Sterropristes Attems, 1934 . Although the type species of Malaccolabis differs from that of Sterropristes in some characters, notably the number of sparsely setose antennal articles, these do not warrant separation at the genus level ( Table 1 ). Some of the purportedly diagnostic differences of Malaccolabis exhibit variability now that additional specimens of its type species are known, with the range of variation overlapping with S. sarasinorum . For example, the difference in number of antennal articles (17 versus 12–15) is likely a result of the holotype of S. metallicus being teratological or due to damage and repair with respect to this character because the new topotypes of S. metallicus have 17 articles as in S. sarasinorum . A supposedly diagnostic difference in number of teeth on the forcipular tarsungula (9 versus 13) can likewise be dismissed because topotypes of S. metallicus have as few teeth as the holotype of S. sarasinorum . The presence or absence of a dorsal groove on the ultimate leg femur was cited by Verhoeff (1937) as diagnostic for two genera, but this furrow is in fact present in S. sarasinorum but was not described or illustrated by Attems (1934) (see below).

Figures

FIGURE 1. Spiracles of segments 3, 5 and 7 (left to right, respectively). A – C. Holotype NMB 432 a of Sterropristes sarasinorum Attems, 1934. D – F. Specimen CUMZ 3205 of Sterropristes metallicus from Penang Botanical Gardens, Penang, Malaysia. G – I. Holotype CUMZ 3207 of Sterropristes violaceus Muadsub and Panha n. sp.