Biodiversity Data Journal :
Single Taxon Treatment
|
Corresponding author: Huiqin Ma (mahuiqin008@126.com), Yanmin Lu (luyanmin_2001@sina.com)
Academic editor: Stylianos Simaiakis
Received: 14 Aug 2021 | Accepted: 15 Sep 2021 | Published: 28 Sep 2021
© 2021 Sujian Pei, Haipeng Liu, Kuijing Liang, Huiqin Ma, Yanmin Lu
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Citation:
Pei S, Liu H, Liang K, Ma H, Lu Y (2021) Lithobius (Monotarsobius)tetrasulcussp. n., a new species of centipede from China (Lithobiomorpha, Lithobiidae). Biodiversity Data Journal 9: e73025. https://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.9.e73025
|
The myriapod fauna of China is still poorly known and very little attention has been paid to the study of Lithobiomorpha, with only 100 species and subspecies known from the country. Altogether, 11 species of subgenus Monotarsobius have been recorded from China, but only two of them have been reported from Hebei Province. Herein, a new species recently discovered in the Hebei Province, China, is described and illustrated.
A new lithobiids species Lithobius (Monotarsobius) tetrasulcus sp. n. is described and illustrated from Hengshui Lake National Nature Reserve, Hebei Province, China. The new species is compared with Lithobius (Monotarsobius) crassipes Koch, 1862 from Taiwan, China. It can be easily distinguished from congeners by having a longitudinal groove on the dorsal side of the femur and tibia of the male legs 14 and 15, only having a posterior spine on the dorsal side of femur of legs 12–15, lacking robust spines lying dorsally on the external margin on the second article of the female gonopods and the third article of the female gonopods having a bidentate apical claw.
Hebei Province, Hengshui Lake National Nature Reserve, Chilopoda, Lithobiidae, Monotarsobius Verhoeff, 1905
Monotarsobius was originally proposed as a subgenus of Lithobius Leach, 1814 in the family Lithobiidae by Verhoeff (
Specimens were collected under leaf litter and/or stones and preserved in 75% ethanol. Illustrations and measurements were produced using a ZEISS SteREO Discovery.V20 microscope equipped with an Abbe drawing tube and an ocular micrometre and Axiocam 512 colour. The colour description is based on specimens fixed in 75% ethanol. The body length is measured from the anterior margin of the cephalic plate to the posterior end of the postpedal tergite. Type specimens and other material are deposited in the School of Life Sciences, Hengshui University, Hengshui, China (HUSLS). The terminology of the external anatomy follows
Body: 11.9–17.0 mm long, cephalic plate 1.3–1.6 mm long, 1.4–1.8 mm wide.
Colour: The antennae are pale yellow-brown with pale greyish hue; tergites yellow-brown, cephalic plate, TT1, 14 and 15 darker brown; pleural region pale grey with pale yellow hue; sternites pale yellow-brown with pale greyish hue; distal part of forcipules darker brown, with basal and proximal parts of forcipules and forcipular coxosternite and SS14 and 15 yellow-brown; all legs pale grey with pale yellow hue; tibia of tarsus 1 darker yellow, tarsus 2 darkest yellow of all legs.
Antennae bearing 19–21 articles, usually 20 articles (Fig.
Lithobius (Monotarsobius) tetrasulcus sp. nov. A male holotype, habitus, dorsal view; B holotype, ocelli and Tomosvary’s organ (To), lateral view; C male holotype, cephalic plate, dorsal view; D male holotype, cephalic plate, ventral view; E male holotype, forcipular coxosternite, ventral view; F female paratype, posterior segments and gonopods, ventral view; G female paratype, apical claw of gonopods, ventral view; H female paratype, apical claw of gonopods, dorsal view.
Cephalic plate smooth, convex, slightly wider than long; tiny setae emerging from pores scattered very sparsely over the whole surface; frontal marginal ridge with shallow anterior median furrow; short to long setae scattered along the marginal ridge of the cephalic plate; lateral marginal ridge discontinuous, posterior margin continuous, straight, slightly wider than lateral marginal ridge (Fig.
Ocelli. Eight to ten (commonly nine) oval to rounded ocelli on each side, from small to large, arranged in three irregular rows, the posterior ocellus largest. Ventral ocelli slightly smaller than the dorsal, domed, translucent and usually darkly pigmented (Fig.
Tömösváry’s organ (Fig.
Forcipular coxosternite subtrapezoidal (Fig.
Tergites smooth, without wrinkles, dorsum slightly convex; tiny setae emerging from pores scattered sparsely over the entire surface, near the margin with few long setae; T1 narrower postero-laterally than antero-laterally, generally inverted trapezoidal; TT1 and TT3 narrower than the cephalic plate, T3 wider than the T1. Lateral marginal ridges of all tergites continuous. Posterior margin of TT1, 3 and 5 continuous, posterior margin of TT8, 10, 12 and 14 discontinuous; posterior margin of T7 straight, posterior marginal ridges of TT3, 5, 8, 10, 12 and 14 with concavity gradually increasing. Posterior angles of tergites rounded, without triangular projections. Miniscule setae scattered sparsely over the surface, one thick and long setae on both anterior angles of each tergite.
Sternites. Posterior sides of sternites narrower than anterior, generally inverted trapezoidal, smooth; setae emerging from sparsely scattered pores on the surface and lateral margins, very few short setae sparsely scattered amongst them. Short and thick setae on the surface of the anterior part slightly increasing from S11 to S15.
Legs relatively robust, tarsi articulation ill-defined on legs 1–13, well-defined on legs 14 and 15. All legs with moderately long curved claws; legs 1–13 with anterior and posterior accessory spurs, anterior accessory spurs moderately long and slender, forming a moderately small angle with the claw, posterior accessory spurs slightly more robust, forming a comparatively large angle with the claw, legs 13 with anterior accessory spurs; anterior accessory spurs of legs 14 short and thick, posterior accessory spurs normal; legs 15 lacking accessory spurs. From short to long setae sparsely scattered over the surface of coxas, trochanters, prefemora, femora and tibiae of all legs, more setae on the tarsal surface; setae on the dorsal and ventral surfaces slightly longer than the anterior and posterior ones; legs 14 and 15 thicker than the anterior pairs in both female and male, legs 15 thicker and stronger in male than in female. Many glandular pores on the posterior surfaces of legs 14 and 15. Tarsus 2 is 3.5–4.4 times longer than wide, tarsus 2, 46.0%–69.1% length of tarsus 1 on legs 15 in female; tarsus 2, 3.9–4.9 times longer than wide, tarsus 2, 60%–70% length of tarsus 1 on legs 15 in male. Leg plectrotaxy as in Table
legs |
ventral |
dorsal |
||||||||
C |
Tr |
P |
F |
Ti |
C |
Tr |
P |
F |
Ti |
|
1 |
p |
amp |
am |
ap |
ap |
a |
||||
2 |
mp |
amp |
am |
ap |
ap |
ap |
||||
3 |
mp |
amp |
am |
ap |
ap |
ap |
||||
4 |
mp |
amp |
am |
a(m)p |
ap |
ap |
||||
5-11 |
mp |
amp |
am |
amp |
ap |
ap |
||||
12 |
mp |
amp |
am |
(a) |
amp |
p |
p |
|||
13 |
(m) |
amp |
amp |
am |
a |
amp |
p |
p |
||
14 |
m |
amp |
amp |
a(m) |
a |
amp |
p |
|||
15 |
m |
amp |
am |
a |
a |
amp |
p |
Letters in brackets indicate variable spines.
Coxal pores 3–6 in a row, 4-5(6)-5-4, 3(4)-5-5(4)-3(4), 4-4(5)-4-4, commonly 4-5-5-4 in female, 3-4(5)-4-3(4), commonly 3-4-4-3 in male; slightly oval or round, coxal pore field set in a relatively shallow groove, the coxal pore-field fringe with slight prominence, with moderately long setae sparsely scattered over the surface.
Female. S15 anterior margin broader than posterior, generally inverted trapezoidal, postero-medially straight. Moderately long setae sparsely scattered on S15 surface. Surface of the lateral sternal margin of genital segment well chitinised, posterior margin of genital sternite deeply concave between condyles of gonopods, except for a small, median rhombic-shaped bulge. Relatively long setae very sparsely scattered over ventral surface of the genital segment, slightly more setae on posterior part, especially on the posterior edge. Gonopods: first article fairly broad, bearing 16 or 17 moderately long setae, arranged in three irregular rows; with 2+2 small coniform spurs, inner spur slightly smaller than the outer (Fig.
Male. S15 posterior margin narrower than anterior, postero-medially straight, sparsely covered with long setae; sternite of genital segment evidently smaller than the female, usually sclerotised; posterior margin deeply concave between the gonopods, without medial bulge. Short to long setae evenly scattered on the ventral surface of the genital segment. Gonopods short, appearing as small finger-like bulges, with 2–4 long setae, apically slightly sclerotised (Fig.
Antennae composed of 19–21 articles, ocelli 8–10, usually nine on each side, arranged in three irregular rows, the posterior ocellus comparatively large, Tömösváry’s organ larger than the adjacent ocelli; commonly 2+2 coxosternal teeth, porodonts lying posterolateral to the lateral-most tooth; coxal pore formula 3–6, arranged in one row; legs 14 and 15 are obviously modified in male, with a central longitudinal continuous groove on the dorsal of femur and tibia. Female gonopods with 2+2 moderately small coniform spurs, apical claw of the third article bidentate; male gonopods short and small.
To emphasise the obviously central longitudinal continuous groove on the dorsal of femur and tibia of the male legs 14 and 15.
The new species is morphologically close to Lithobius (Monotarsobius) crassipes Koch, 1862 (
This study was supported by the project of Hengshui University (no. 2020ZR25) and the project of Hebei Provincial Key Laboratory of Wetland Ecology and Conservation (no. hklz201902, hklz201908), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC grant no. 31572239) and the Natural Science Foundation of Hebei Province (grant no. C2018111019) and the Key Discipline of Zoology of Hengshui University. We are grateful to Dr Ivan Tuf (Olomouc) for his helping us with the taxonomic status of this species. We thank Dr. Gregory D Edgecombe (London), Dr Pavel Stoev and Dr Marzio Zapparoli (Viterbo) for their hospitality and valuable assistance during our research.