Ethmostigmus Pocock, 1898
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.4825.1.1 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:F230F199-1C94-4E2E-9CE4-5F56212C015F |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4457019 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03DE092D-FFDF-D73B-FF13-FA08287BDD7B |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Ethmostigmus Pocock, 1898 |
status |
|
(!) Ethmostigmus Pocock, 1898 View in CoL View at ENA
Figs 101–105 View FIGURES 97–101 View FIGURES 102–107
Type species. Scolopendra trigonopoda Leach, 1817 (by subsequent designation of Attems 1930).
Diagnosis. Median tooth of labrum well developed. Forcipular tooth-plates present, trochantero-prefemoral processes virtually absent ( Fig. 102 View FIGURES 102–107 ). Tergites consistently lacking longitudinal keels. Sternites with paramedian sutures and/or sulci both developed to varying degrees (figs 25, 26 in Schileyko & Stoev 2016). LBS 7 with spiracles, spiracles virtually without atrium ( Fig. 103 View FIGURES 102–107 ). Legs with tarsal spur(s). Coxopleural process ( Fig. 105 View FIGURES 102–107 ) from moderate (fig. 34 in Schileyko & Stagl) to very long and large ( Fig. 104 View FIGURES 102–107 ), only short in some Australian species (e.g., E. curtipes Koch, 1983 ). Ultimate legs of “common” shape ( Fig. 101 View FIGURES 97–101 ), but in a few species—for example in Ethmostigmus rubripes rubripes (Brandt, 1840) —these legs may be much shortened and broadened (becoming pracrically “pincershaped”) as a result of geographic variability (see Schileyko & Stagl 2004: 120). Prefemur of the ultimate leg with spines plus well-developed corner spine ( Figs 101 View FIGURES 97–101 , 105 View FIGURES 102–107 ); claw-shaped pretarsus in most species neither elongated nor enlarged, rarely as long as tarsus 2.
Number of species. 17 ( Edgecombe & Bonato 2011), 22 ( Bonato et al. 2016), 15 ( Joshi & Edgecombe 2018), 19 ( Joshi & Edgecombe 2019).
Sexual dimorphism. Unknown.
Remarks. Treated as a genus in Edgecombe & Bonato (2011: 402), Vahtera et al. (2012a: 7, 2012b: 235, 2013: 584), Schileyko & Stoev (2016: 258), Joshi & Edgecombe (2018: 1316), Siriwut et al. (2018: 1005), Joshi & Edgecombe (2019: 1). The most recent morphological account on Ethmostigmus is Joshi & Edgecombe (2018).
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.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |