Glomeris klugii Brandt, 1833,

Golovatch, Sergei, Mauriès, Jean-Paul, Akkari, Nesrine, Stoev, Pavel & Geoffroy, Jean-Jacques, 2009, The millipede genus Glomeris Latreille, 1802 (Diplopoda, Glomerida, Glomeridae) in North Africa, ZooKeys 12 (12), pp. 47-86: 62-67

publication ID

http://doi.org/ 10.3897/zookeys.12.179

publication LSID

lsid:zoobank.org:pub:40AE4755-F076-4CCD-81CF-F14F318E4FFE

DOI

http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3792164

persistent identifier

http://treatment.plazi.org/id/744987F1-FF91-442F-A8EC-8878FCBDFB7D

treatment provided by

Plazi

scientific name

Glomeris klugii Brandt, 1833
status

 

Glomeris klugii Brandt, 1833 

Figs 10-14View Figure 10View Figure 11View Figure 12View Figure 13View Figure 14

Glomeris klugii Brandt, 1833: 195  (D).

Glomeris marmorata Brandt, 1833: 196  (D), syn. n.!

Glomeris fuscomarmorata Lucas, 1846: 284  (D), syn. n.!

Glomeris pustulata Latr.  , var. marmorata  – Brandt 1840b: 42 (R); 1841b: 148 (R); Gervais 1847: 73 (R).

Glomeris fusco-marmorata  (sic!) – Gervais 1847: 74 (R); Lucas 1849: 327, plate 1, fig. 4 (R); Pocock 1892: 27 (F); Brolemann 1921: 101 (L).

Glomeris conspersa  forma genuina (sic!) – Attems 1908: 105 (F).

Glomeris fuscomarmorata  – Schubart 1953: 218 (L); Abrous-Kherbouche & Mauriès 1996: 586 (L).

Glomeris maculosa Verhoeff, 1921: 27  , fig. 3 (D), syn. n.!

Glomeris maculosa  – Schubart 1953: 218 (L).

Glomeris conspersa  – Abrous-Kherbouche & Mauriès 1996: 572, 586 (F, L).

Type material examined: Germany, “Hercynia”, leg. Zimmermann, 2 ♀? syntypes of Glomeris marmorata Brandt, 1833  (ZMUB 39). No lectotype designation has been made here, particularly as we did not directly examine the material  .

Algeria, Philippeville (now Skikda), date?, leg. et det. H. Lucas, 1 ♀ syntype (“type”) of Glomeris fuscomarmorata  (MNHN CC 043)  .

Algeria, Gorges de la Chiffa, date?, leg. H. Ribaut, ♁ “type” of Glomeris maculosa Verhoeff, 1921  (ZSM A20070924 + micropreparation A 20032085). The ♁ represents only part of the syntype series, which was said to consist of 2 ♁ and 1 ♀ ( Verhoeff 1921)  .

Other material (nearly all previously identified as Glomeris fuscomarmorata  ): Algeria, “Bona” (now Annaba), leg. F. Meinert, 5 ♀ (ZMUC)  . Algeria, le Ruisseau (environs of Algiers), 18.XII.1892, leg. P. Lesne, 2 ♀ (MNHN CC 168, entry 6-97)  . Algeria, Ravin de la Femme Sauvage (environs of Algiers), XII.1892, leg. P. Lesne, 2 ♁, 2 ♀ (MNHN CC 168, entry 6-97)  . Algeria, loc.?, 1898, leg. Noucelhier, 1 ♁, 3 ♀ (MNHN CC 168)  . Algeria, Massif de l’Edough , VII-VIII.1918, leg. Ed. Ch. (?), 1 ♁ juv., 4 ♀ (MNHN CC 168)  . Algeria, near Algiers, ruisseau des Singes , date?, leg. et det. H. Ribaut, 1 ♁, 1 ♀, 1♀ juv. (MNHN CC 043)  . Algeria, Algiers, 3.IV.1907, leg. et det. H. Ribaut, 2 ♀ (MNHN CC 043)  . Tunisia (Khroumirie), Jendouba Gov., Aïn Draham , V-VI.1906, leg. H. Gadeau de Kerville, 1 ♁ (MNHN CC 043). Same locality, Aïn Draham , Col des Ruines , 36°47‘N, 8°41‘E, 19.XI.2003, leg N. Akkari, 1 ♀ (NMNH). Same locality, 5.II.2004, leg N. Akkari, 3 ♀ (ZMUM). Same locality, 19.XI.2003, leg N. Akkari, 1 ♀ (NMNH). Same locality, 18.IV.2004, leg. N. Akkari, 1 juv. (ZMUM). Same localityGoogleMaps  ,

alt. approx. 735 m, 9.III.2009, leg. N. Akkari and H. Enghoff, 1 ♀ (ZMUC). Same locality, alt. approx. 710 m, 11.III.2009, leg. N. Akkari and H. Enghoff, 3 ♁, 1 ♁ juv., 11 ♀ (ZMUC). Same locality, Aïn Draham area , 5-18.V.1988, leg. Z. M. Cop. Exp., 3 ♁, 2 ♀ (ZMUC 200107). Same locality, 7 km S of Aïn Draham, Les Chênes , 22.03.1986, leg. Z. M. Cop. Exp., 2 ♁, 6 ♀ ( ZMUC 200109). Same locality, Fernana, 36°43’59″N, 8°40’43″E, alt. approx. 750 m, Quercus-Erica forest, 9.III.2009, leg. N. Akkari and HGoogleMaps  .

Enghoff, 2 ♁ juv., 3 ♀ ( ZMUC). Same locality, Aïn Draham, Beni M’Tir, 36°43’51″N, 8°42’19″E, alt. approx. 590 m, Quercus-Erica forest , 10.III.2009, leg. N. Akkari and H. Enghoff, 2 ♁, 1 ♁ juv., 2 ♀ ( ZMUC)GoogleMaps  .

Brief redescription: Length up to 13.5 mm, width up to 6.25 mm. Coloration mostly vivid, very distinctly marbled, pattern as in Figs 10-13. Syncoxite of telopods as in Figs 14A, BView Figure 14, with only minor variations in shape of central lobe and in delicately bifid coxal horns.

Remarks: The presumed type series of G. marmorata  , even though represented by two dry, pinned specimens, has still preserved its colour pattern sufficiently well ( Fig. 11View Figure 11) to compare it with the beautiful illustrations by Koch (1863) and hence to unequivocally synonymize this species here with G. klugii  , the holotype of which has been revised elsewhere ( Golovatch 2003). This formalizes Brolemann’s (1921) informal synonymy “ G. conspersa C. Koch, 1847  (= marmorata  )” proposed in his checklist.

The syntype of G. fuscomarmorata  examined here has faded completely, apparently due to the long preservation in alcohol. Fortunately, most of the other samples from North Africa, especially fresh ones, have retained their coloration (Figs 10, 12), which matches quite closely the pattern depicted by Lucas (1849), based on a then recently collected syntype (Fig. 13). We are certain, however, that this species must also have been printed somewhat too dark and red compared to its natural coloration in Lucas’ (1849) Plate 1, likely because Lucas used dry material (cf Figs 11View Figure 11 and 13). On the other hand, G. klugii  in Europe is known to exist in two colour morphs, the dark “ undulata  ” and the light “ conspersa  ” ( Hoess 2000), of which “ conspersa  ” is much more widespread

and occupies peripheral parts of the species’ distribution area, including North Africa. Could material of “ undulata  ” have served, at least in part, for Lucas’ (1846, 1849) descriptions and illustrations? Hoess (2000) marked as questionable populations of “ conspersa  ” from a few small, outlying areas in the Balkans, near Algiers and Tunis, but we can confirm the presence of G. klugii  in North Africa. We suggest that it could well have arrived there, particularly at the largest sea ports, through commercial activities, which have been going on since prehistoric times throughout the Mediterranean. The synonymy of G. klugii  and G. fuscomarmorata  proposed here therefore appears fully justified.

Furthermore, we must give due tribute to Brandt (1840b, 1841a, b) who, already at the very beginning of diplopodological explorations in North Africa, wrote that his G. marmorata  from Germany and Algeria were identical. Although he failed to recognize that his own G. klugii  and G. marmorata  actually represented the same speciesapparently because the holotype of G. klugii  (surprisingly) did not show any striae on the thoracic shield, retained (in alcohol) its generally light coloration and was thought to have come from Egypt or Syria—he was essentially correct in thinking that the same species could exist on both continents. Likewise correct have been the very few subsequent records of “ conspersa  ” in Algeria and Tunisia ( Attems 1908; Abrous-Kherbouche and Mauriès 1996), whereas most other authors believed that the North African fauna, including that of Glomeris  , is fully endemic.

The syntype of G. maculosa  is a “ conspersa  ” specimen of G. klugii  , with the colour pattern still well traceable. Hence the synonymy of these names is also proposed here.

The fact that G. klugii  belongs to the “ Eurypleuromeris  ” type provides an additional indication of its probable introduction to North Africa from Europe. Moreover, even though G. conspersa  is the type-species of Eurypleuromeris, Verhoeff (1921)  mistakenly attributed his G. maculosa  to the “ Stenopleuromeris  ” type. Indeed, the anterior part of tergum 3 in the syntype of G. maculosa  that we have examined is probably a little narrower than is usual for European or other North African “ conspersa  ” specimens of G. klugii  , but this variation seems too modest to be considered a reliable distinction, perhaps even reflecting individual rather than geographical variation. This is another good reason to abandon the subgeneric division of Glomeris  .

ZMUC

Zoological Museum, University of Copenhagen

ZMUB

Museum of Zoology at the University of Bergen, Vertebrate collections

Kingdom

Animalia

Phylum

Arthropoda

Class

Diplopoda

Order

Glomerida

Family

Glomeridae

Genus

Glomeris

Loc

Glomeris klugii Brandt, 1833

Golovatch, Sergei, Mauriès, Jean-Paul, Akkari, Nesrine, Stoev, Pavel & Geoffroy, Jean-Jacques 2009
2009
Loc

Glomeris conspersa

Abrous-Kherbouche O & Mauries J-P 1996: 572
1996
Loc

Glomeris fuscomarmorata

Abrous-Kherbouche O & Mauries J-P 1996: 586
Schubart O 1953: 218
1953
Loc

Glomeris maculosa

Schubart O 1953: 218
1953
Loc

Glomeris maculosa

Verhoeff KW 1921: 27
1921
Loc

Glomeris conspersa

Attems C 1908: 105
1908
Loc

Glomeris fusco-marmorata

Brolemann HW 1921: 101
Pocock RI 1892: 27
Lucas H 1849: 327
Gervais P 1847: 74
1847
Loc

Glomeris fuscomarmorata

Lucas H 1846: 284
1846
Loc

Glomeris pustulata Latr.

Gervais P 1847: 73
Brandt JF 1840: 42
1840
Loc

Glomeris klugii

Brandt JF 1833: 195
1833
Loc

Glomeris marmorata

Brandt JF 1833: 196
1833