Research Article ISSN 2336-9744 (online) | ISSN 2337-0173 (print) The journal is available on line at www.biotaxa.org/em

On the true identity of aztecorum Verhoeff, 1934 (Chilopoda: Scolopendromorpha: )

CARLOS A. MARTÍNEZ-MUÑOZ1, PETR DOLEJŠ2 & CHRISTIAN KRONMÜLLER3

1Zoologisches Institut und Museum, Cytologie und Evolutionsbiologie, Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-Universität Greifswald, Soldmannstrasse 23, D-17487 Greifswald, Germany. E-mail: [email protected] 2Department of Zoology, National Museum – Natural History Museum, Cirkusová 1740, 193 00 Praha 9, Czech Republic. E-mail: [email protected] 3Bavarian State Collection of Zoology, Münchhausenstrasse 21, D-81247 Munich, Germany. E-mail: [email protected]

Received 30 August 2016 │ Accepted 4 October 2016 │ Published online 7 October 2016.

Abstract The genus Scolopendra Linnaeus, 1758 currently comprises 13 valid species in Mexico. One of the species, Scolopendra aztecorum Verhoeff, 1934 has been considered a potential synonym of S. viridis Say, 1821, S. polymorpha Wood, 1861, or Arthrorhabdus pygmaeus (Pocock, 1895). To shed light on its true status, five of the six syntype specimens were examined, redescribed and illustrated for the first time. Scolopendra aztecorum is diagnosable from all other Mexican species and remains in the genus Scolopendra as a valid species.

Key words: Scolopendra, redescription, Mexico, endemic.

Introduction

Bücherl (1942) published a comprehensive catalog of the chilopods from the Neotropical region. In his work, he regarded as doubtful the new forms of the viridis group from Mexico described by Verhoeff (1934), with the exceptions of Scolopendra octodentata and “perhaps” S. aztecorum. Bücherl (1942) was the first author to question the validity of Scolopendra aztecorum, noticing its closeness to Wood, 1861 (as Scolopendra viridis polymorpha sensu Attems (1930)) and the lack of a comparison in the original treatment by Verhoeff (1934). In consequence, Bücherl (1942) tried to provide a basic comparison between S. aztecorum and S. viridis, specifically with S. v. polymorpha sensu Attems (1930). While doing so, he failed to find the most important character separating these two species: the number of tarsal spurs on the locomotory legs. Bücherl (1942) correctly mentioned S. aztecorum as having two tarsal spurs on legs 1–20 but stated that Attems (1930) did not establish the spur number in S. v. polymorpha. He overlooked that Attems (1930) described Scolopendra viridis Say, 1821 (including S. v. polymorpha) as having two tarsal spurs on leg pair 1 and one tarsal spur on leg pairs 2 to 19 or 20. Bücherl (1974) did not mention S. aztecorum in his second catalog of Neotropical Scolopendromorpha. Shelley (2006) justly considered clarifying Neotropical species of Scolopendra as a daunting challenge. For the benefit of all subsequent workers, he took the initial step of consolidating the species- group names and literature on New World Scolopendra species. This author regarded 13 Mexican species as valid, a figure followed by Cupul-Magaña (2013). However, the Mexican endemic Scolopendra aztecorum

Ecol. Mont., 7, 2016, 405-413

ON THE TRUE IDENTITY OF SCOLOPENDRA AZTECORUM

Verhoeff, 1934 was considered by Shelley (2006) a potential synonym of S. viridis Say, 1821, S. polymorpha Wood, 1861, or Arthrorhabdus pygmaeus (Pocock, 1895). To solve this taxonomical problem, five of the six syntypes of Scolopendra aztecorum were located, examined and confirmed as conspecific. The relevant taxonomic literature is consolidated and comments on nomenclatural and curatorial issues are presented.

Material and Methods

Anatomical terminology follows the recommendations of Lewis et al. (2005) and Bonato et al. (2010). The term “accessory spine/spines” recommended by Bonato et al. (2010) is substituted here by one of its synonyms, “accessory spur/spurs” (Crabill, 1958; Lewis et al., 2005). This increases the consistency of the terminology because the “accessory claws” are “actually spurs ankylosed to base of pretarsus”, as noted by Crabill (1960). The change will allow using without confusion expressions such as “legs 1–20 without spines”. As the terms for the homologous structures on the second maxillae are not listed by Bonato et al. (2010) we use the ones recommended here. Standardized label information is proposed for syntypes, following recommendations of Wheeler et al. (2001) and ICZN (1999). Georeference for La Paz was directly taken from Google Maps. Georeference for Los Inocentes is not accurate in Google Maps but it was step by step centered in the only country house that remains, where old roads meet, and then retrieved. Free map data at 1:110m scale were obtained from Natural Earth (http://www.naturalearthdata.com/) and processed using TileMill v.0.10.1. The specimen deposited in Prague was photographed using an Olympus SZX12 stereomicroscope equipped with an Olympus E-510 camera. Scale bars were added using QuickPhoto Camera 2.3 software. Acronyms of repositories are as follows: BMNH: The Natural History Museum, London, United Kingdom. MNHP: Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France. NHMW: Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, Vienna, Austria. MHNG: Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle, Geneva, Switzerland. NHRS: Swedish Museum of Natural History, Stockholm, Sweden. NMNHS: National Museum of Natural History, Sofia, Bulgaria. NMP: National Museum – Natural History Museum, Prague, Czech Republic. RMNH: Naturalis Biodiversity Center, Leiden, Netherlands. ZMB: Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universität, Berlin, Germany. ZMUC: Danish Museum of Natural History, Copenhagen, Denmark. ZMUH: Zoological Institute and Museum, University of Hamburg, Germany. ZSM: Zoologische Staatssammlung, Munich, Germany.

Systematics

Order Scolopendromorpha

Family Scolopendridae Leach, 1815

Genus Scolopendra Linnaeus, 1758

Scolopendra aztecorum Verhoeff, 1934 (Figs. 1, 2a–h)

Scolopendra azteka Verhoeff, in litt. (non Scolopendra azteca Saussure, 1858) (See remarks) Scolopendra aztekorum Verhoeff, 1934: 49. (See remarks) Scolopendra aztecorum Verhoeff, 1934: 49–50. Scolopendra aztecorum Bücherl, 1942: 291, 292, 293. Scolopendra aztekorum Moritz & Fischer, 1979: 329. Scolopendra aztecorum Shelley, 2006: 27, 40. Scolopendra aztecorum Minelli et al., 2006–2015.

406

MARTÍNEZ-MUÑOZ ET AL.

Scolopendra aztecorum Cupul-Magaña, 2009: 51. Scolopendra aztecorum Cupul-Magaña, 2013: 35. Scolopendra aztecorum Dolejš in Tuf & Tajovský, 2014: 20. Scolopendra aztecorum Dolejš in Tuf & Tajovský, 2015: 7. Scolopendra aztecorum Bonato et al., 2016.

Type material. Verhoeff (1934) described S. aztecorum based on six syntypes.

Type locality. Mexico, Baja California Sur, near La Paz and near Los Inocentes (Fig. 1). See remarks.

Figure 1. Map showing the type locality of Scolopendra aztecorum syntypes. Mexico, Baja California Sur, 1) La Paz and 2) Los Inocentes.

Distribution. Known only from type localities. Endemic to Mexico.

Original rank. Species.

Current rank and status. Valid species.

Material examined for redescription. Five syntypes. NMP P6E-1303, one adult specimen. |Scolopendra aztecorum VERHOEFF, 1937. det. L. J. Dobroruka. La Paz, J. Kalifornie, U.S.A. (pod hnijícími kaktusy). 1 kus (SYNTYPUS). lgt. Prof. Dr. K. Štorkán. 1930. Coll. Nár. muzeum. I. č. 1303. P. č. 45/1975.| ZMB 13378, one juvenile specimen. |Syn-Typus| |Scolopendra azteca Verh. mexican. Kalifornien. 1095| RMNH.CHIL.154, one juvenile specimen. |Cat. Nº 154| |Scolopendra azteca Verh. Mexic. Kaliforn.| ZSM- A-20051044, one juvenile, dissected and in poor condition, all dissected parts are included in the vial, apparently there are no slides by Verhoeff. |Holotype| |Scolopendra aztekorūm Verh. Mexikanisch Californien.| ZSM-A-20051045, one adult in good condition. |Scolopendra aztekorūm Verhoeff mexik. Californien. Coll. Verhoeff.|

Diagnosis. With shared characters of S. viridis, S. polymorpha and S. chlora Chamberlin, 1942: 1) cephalic plate without paramedian sutures, 2) transverse sulcus on tergite 1, 3) two paramedian sutures on tergite 1, 4)

Ecol. Mont., 7, 2016, 405-413 407

ON THE TRUE IDENTITY OF SCOLOPENDRA AZTECORUM median longitudinal suture on tergite 21 and absence of prefemoral spines on legs 19–20. Readily distinguishable from the other three species by the unique character of two spurs on tarsi 1 of legs 1–19(20) against two spurs only present on tarsi 1 of legs 1.

Redescription Color: According to Verhoeff (1934), body and legs pale yellow, antennae, head and T1 dark bluish, sometimes also tergites 2 and 3, forcipular coxosternite and forcipules reddish-brown, tarsungula black. Only one adult with head and T1 more yellowish-brown. At present, former bluish color on the head and T1 is faded.

Antennae: 27–33 antennal articles, 15–17 basal sparsely hirsute. The transition between sparsely hirsute and hirsute antennal articles is gradual and difficult to see. This may be due to the setae being very short and pale. Setae not arranged in longitudinal rows. ZSM-A-20051044 with antennae broken, only 15 left and 26 right articles remaining. Bücherl (1942) incorrectly transcribed the count from Verhoeff (1934) as only “27– 32 artículos antenais”.

Cephalic plate: Slightly and sparsely punctate. Short anterior sulcus. Without paramedian sutures. Posterior margin almost straight, overlapping anterior margin of T1.

Mandibles and maxillary complex: Specimen ZSM-A-20051044 with right mandible, 1st maxillae and 2nd maxillae dissected. Right mandible with five tricuspid teeth, condyle of lamina condilifera well developed. 2nd maxillae articles not ridged or pointed ventrally, article 2 with a lateral spur. According to Verhoeff (1934), the spur (“Dorn”) may be present or absent, but non dissected specimens were not checked for this character to avoid manipulation damage. Article 3 with conspicuous dorsal brush. Claw with 2 accessory spurs.

Forcipular segment: Coxosternite with a short anteromedian longitudinal suture (aprox. 1/8 to less than 1/3 of the coxosternite’s length) (in specimen ZSM-A-20051045 double and reticulate in the middle), without transversal suture. Tooth-plates wider than long, slightly separated. Typical single short strong seta in the middle of tooth-plates, not seen by Verhoeff (1934): “Die Zahnplatten innen mit Grube, aber ohne borstentragenden tuberkel”. Tooth-plates with 1+1+2 teeth, the lateral tooth more isolated and sharp, the median ones more blunt. Process of trochanteroprefemur large, generally with 2 tubercles on its internal margin (in specimen ZSM-A-20051045 left process without noticeable tubercles, right with two insinuated bumps, in specimen ZSM-A-20051044 tubercles well developed). Trochanteroprefemoral process surpassing the anterior border of the tooth-plates. Interior surface of tarsungula with a single sharp longitudinal ridge, smooth, not serrate.

Tergites: T1 with curved anterior transverse sulcus. Two faint paramedian sutures, diverging and branching anteriorly, not seen by Verhoeff (1934). Branching sutures 3 (2–4) each side and sometimes 1 medial, often more sclerotized and darker where they touch the transverse sulcus. The sutures cross the transverse sulcus and form a reticulate pattern anteriorly. TT2–20 with complete paramedian sutures (except specimen ZSM- A-20051045 with sutures of T3 incomplete in the middle). Paramedian sutures in T2 and T4 anteriorly convergent, in T3 anteriorly divergent. T21 with median longitudinal suture, from complete to incomplete anteriorly (1/10) and posteriorly (3/10). Oblique sutures generally present in T7, T8, T10, T12, T14 and T16. In tergites anterior to T7 there is not a definite oblique suture but a reticulum. Margination starting from T7– T11 to T21 (in ZMB 13378 seen only from T16 to T21), in anterior tergites incomplete and less marked, generally marked and complete from T8–T14 onwards. T21 as wide as long or slightly wider than long, posterior margin rounded.

Sternites: SS2–20 with two complete paramedian sutures. S21 generally longer than wide (but wider than long in NMP P6E-1303), posterior margin straight to emarginate.

Legs: Tarsi 1 longer than tarsi 2. Legs 1–20 without spines. Leg pair 1 with 1 prefemoral, 1 femoral, 1 tibial, 2 tarsal (on tarsi 1) and two pretarsal accessory spurs. Legs 2–20 without tibial spurs, legs 2–19(20) with two tarsal spurs on tarsi 1, sometimes only one tarsal spur on leg pair 20, legs 2–20 with pretarsal accessory spurs.

408

MARTÍNEZ-MUÑOZ ET AL.

Figure 2a-h. Scolopendra aztecorum, syntype NMP P6E-1303. a) Head, dorsal. b) Tergite 1. c) Forciples. d) Tooth- plates. e) Tergite 21. f) Prefemur of leg pair 21, dorsal. g) Posterior segments, ventral. h) Posterior segments, lateral, right leg 20 showing the two tarsal spurs (ts).

Ecol. Mont., 7, 2016, 405-413 409

ON THE TRUE IDENTITY OF SCOLOPENDRA AZTECORUM

Coxopleura: Coxopleural surface without setae. Inner half of the coxopleuron not notably warped, in contrast to species like S. angulata Newport, 1844 and S. gigantea Linnaeus, 1758. Extensive pore-field, covering most of the ventral surface of the coxopleuron, including the posterior margin, the inner margin and part of the coxopleural process, but leaving a short and narrow poreless stripe anterior to the coxopleural process. Coxal pores numerous, small, grouped (generally separated by not more than 1–2 pore diameters). Posterior margin of coxopleuron slightly oblique, with one side spine. Coxopleural process short, conical, with 4–7 spines, from which two are apical and the rest subdistal in ventral, lateral or dorsal position, the generally 4 (3–5) biggest spines organized in a row. Verhoeff (1934) considered the coxopleural process as strongly developed and slender, moderately long, with 3–5 outer spines.

Ultimate legs: Prefemur and femur somewhat flattened dorsally, other articles cylindrical. Pretarsal accessory spurs present, without other spurs. Prefemur dorsodistally barely notched. Only prefemur spined. Prefemoral spines 19–27 (21–24 in Verhoeff, 1934) organized in 5–7 rows (1 dorsolateral internal, 0–1 lateral internal, 0–2 ventrolateral internal, 1–2 ventral, 1–2 ventrolateral external, 0–1 lateral external). Internal dorsolateral row with 4–7 spines. Prefemoral process with 3–5 spines (only 4 in Verhoeff, 1934), in ZSM-A-20051044 left leg prefemoral process with 5 big and 1 small spine, in NMP P6E-1303 right leg process regenerated and without spines. Prefemur with basal ventral depression, flanked anteriorly by 1–3 small spines.

Size: 55–120 mm. Size as Verhoeff (1934): Adults from 118–125 mm, juveniles from 70–77 mm (see remarks).

Discussion. The posterior margin of the head overlapping T1, T1 with a transverse sulcus, and the distribution of tarsal spurs allow the unequivocal differentiation from A. pygmaeus. The character of two tarsal spurs on legs 1–19(20) allows the recognition of Scolopendra aztecorum as a valid species, different from S. viridis, S. polymorpha, S. chlora or any other New World Scolopendra species. The only known exception is the mistake in the description of the neotype of Scolopendra pomacea by Cupul-Magaña et al. (2015), where the authors wrote “Scolopendra pomacea differs from the other described species of the genus Scolopendra in Mexico in the following combination of characteristics (Attems 1930): …tibia of legs 1–19 with one spur and tarsus 1 with two spurs; legs 20 with tibia usually without spur...”. This is clearly an erroneous translation of Attems (1930) description, the correct translation being: “…tarsi 1 of legs 1–19 with one spur and pretarsi with two accessory spurs; legs 20 with tarsus 1 usually without spur...”.

Remarks

Regarding an avoided potential homonymy. Verhoeff (1934) stated in a footnote “aztekorum = azteka Verh. i. litt. (non azteka Sauss.!)”. This means that he first used the name S. azteka for the species in a letter or other documented correspondence, probably with a date. The existence of this letter is unknown, and the document is not published in the sense of the ICZN. Verhoeff (1934) noted that this name will fall in homonymy with S. azteka (sic!) Saussure, so he changed it to S. aztekorum.

Regarding species epithets. Verhoeff (1934) used “k” instead of “c” in the first mention of the epithet “aztekorum n. sp.” in his key for Scolopendra species from the viridis group. He immediately remitted to the aforementioned footnote, and there also used “k” for the epithets aztekorum (it was the second time) and azteka (twice, Verh. and Sauss.). However, he used the binomen Scolopendra aztecorum n. sp. in the species description, immediately after the key and on the same page as the footnote. Verhoeff (1934) utilized the epithet aztecorum two more times, in the description of Scolopendra viridis storkáni [recte storkani (Shelley, 2006)]. All subsequent authors except Moritz & Fischer (1979) have used the spelling Scolopendra aztecorum. The most frequently cited Scolopendra aztecorum Verhoeff, 1934 is here selected as the correct original spelling. The Scolopendra aztekorum spelling is incorrect (Art 24.2.3, ICZN) and unavailable (Art. 32.4, ICZN). We are the First Revisers (Art. 24.2.3, ICZN).

Regarding type specimen status. Verhoeff (1934) described Scolopendra aztecorum based on six specimens without selecting a holotype, which makes them syntypes (Art. 72.1.1, ICZN). Shelley (2006), followed by Cupul-Magaña (2013), incorrectly stated that the specimen at ZMB was the Scolopendra

410

MARTÍNEZ-MUÑOZ ET AL. aztecorum holotype and immediately after cited Moritz & Fischer (1979). However, Moritz & Fischer (1979) cited ZMB specimen as a “Syntypus” of Scolopendra aztekorum. This confusion was addressed by Dolejš (2015). It is worth noticing that the specimen ZSM-A-20051044 is incorrectly labeled as holotype and that the specimens ZSM-A-20051045 and RMNH.CHIL.154 were not labeled as types.

Regarding the designation of a lectotype. Lectotype designations made after 1999 should have the purpose of clarifying the application of the name to a taxon (ICZN, 1999, p. 11). This is not the case of Scolopendra aztecorum, so it is not necessary. On the other hand, the type series is shared among at least four institutions in three countries. To declare a lectotype will deprive all institutions but one from the possession of name bearing specimens and it will also affect published references on syntype holding. The loss or destruction of the lectotype will lead to a new nomenclatural act designating a neotype while the loss of one or few syntypes from this series will require no action. Keeping the syntypes avoids two potential nomenclatural acts and maintains stability.

Regarding the missing syntype. The sixth syntype was not found. It is not at any of the BMNH (Greg Edgecombe, pers. comm., 18.xi.2014), NHMW (Nesrine Akkari, pers. comm., 11.xii.2014), ZMUC (Henrik Enghoff, pers. comm., 20.x.2015), MHNG (John Hollier, pers. comm., 1.xi.2015) or NHRS (Karin S. Kronestedt, pers. comm., 21.i.2016). It is listed neither by Weidner (1960) nor by Rack (1974) as being at ZMUH, nor by Stoev & Beron (2000) as being at NMNHS. It is not found in the dataset of the Myriapoda and Onychophora collection of the MNHP cited by Le Bras et al. (2015). Verhoeff’s type series usually consist of wet material and micropreparations of dissected parts. There might be a chance that the sixth syntype is dissected and deposited as slides in one of the European collections that stores part of Verhoeff’s collection.

Regarding type locality. Shelley (2006), Minelli et al. (2006–2015), Cupul-Magaña (2013) and Bonato et al. (2016) stated that the type locality of S. aztecorum was “Mexico, Baja California Sur, La Paz”. The recent additions and corrections to Cupul-Magaña (2013) by Flores-Guerrero et al. (2015) did not include new information about the type locality. According to Verhoeff (1934): “4 Erwachsene und 2 Adolescentes stammen vom südlichsten Teil der Halbinsel Kalifornien, wo sie sich unter modernden Kakteenstämmen aufhielten, teils bei La Paz, teils bei Inocentez”. The syntypes were collected near La Paz and near Los Inocentes, not “Inocentez” as mispelled by Verhoeff (1934) and Bücherl (1942). Art. 73.2.3 (ICZN, 1999) establishes that the type locality encompasses all of the places of origin.

Regarding distribution. Distribution was given as “type locality”, meaning La Paz only, by Shelley (2006) and “BCS: La Paz” by Cupul-Magaña (2013). Distribution is type locality, La Paz and Los Inocentes.

Regarding colleting dates. Dolejš (2015) was the first author to provide a collecting date for the specimens, the year 1930.

Regarding a standardized label. As a curatorial recommendation, an additional standardized label is proposed for all specimens, which should be labeled as syntypes following recommendation 72D (ICZN, 1999). Scolopendra aztecorum Verhoeff, 1934. SYNTYPE. MEXICO: Baja California Sur: La Paz (24.15070° N, 110.29724° W) or Los Inocentes (23.77716° N, 110.65430° W), under decaying cactuses. Leg: Dr. Jaroslav Štorkán. 1930.

Regarding specimens’ size: Verhoeff (1934) twice mentioned that he examined 4 adults and 2 juveniles. The adults were described as 118–125 mm in length, with 30–33 antennal articles and margination incomplete on T7 but marked on TT8–21. The juveniles were described as 70–77 mm in length, with 27–28 antennal articles and margination marked on TT14–21. However, it seems that Verhoeff (1934) mistook the numbers. Our data (table I) shows that Verhoeff (1934) categories are not absolute (juvenile RMNH.CHIL.154 has an antennal article count corresponding to the adult category) and that 2 syntypes are adults and 3 are juveniles. This makes us think that there were originally 2 adults and 4 juveniles, but without the sixth syntype this cannot be assured.

Ecol. Mont., 7, 2016, 405-413 411

ON THE TRUE IDENTITY OF SCOLOPENDRA AZTECORUM

Table I. Comparison between Verhoeff’s (1934) data for adults and juveniles of Scolopendra aztecorum and current character status of 5 examined syntypes.

Antennal Specimens/Characters Size articles Margination Adults (Verhoeff, 1934) 118–125 mm 30–33 T7 incomplete, TT8–21 Juveniles (Verhoeff, 1934) 70–77 mm 27–28 TT14–21 ZSM-A-20051045 120 mm 32l,r TT8–9 incomplete, TT10–21 NMP P6E-1303 118 mm 30l, 33r T7 incomplete, TT8–21 RMNH.CHIL.154 66 mm 31l, 30r TT10–13 incomplete, TT14–21 ZSM-A-20051044 63 mm 15l, 26r, broken TT11–13 incomplete, TT14–21 ZMB 13378 55 mm 27l, 28r TT16–21

Conclusion This work summarizes several changes and updates with respect to the S. aztecorum synthesis provided by Shelley (2006): type specimen status, number of syntypes, confirmed repositories, type locality/distribution, anatomical illustrations and map. The taxonomical hypotheses by Bücherl (1942) and Shelley (2006) are corrected. S. aztecorum remains a valid species and the correct name spelling is properly fixed.

Acknowledgements CAMM wishes to thank the following colleagues and curatorial staff who made a first trip to Germany possible, provided useful hints, specimens and excellent working conditions during a two-year research period: Hans Joosten, Christoph Schaller, Andy Sombke, Carsten Müller and Marie Hörnig (Universität Greifswald), Jason Dunlop, Anja Friederichs and Johanna Kapp (ZMB), Greg Edgecombe (BMNH), John Lewis (UK), Karen van Dorp (RMNH), Stefan Friedrich and Roland Melzer (ZSM). Varpu Vahtera and Greg Edgecombe kindly reviewed the manuscript and provided constructive feedback. This work was financially supported by a Masters scholarship from the Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (DAAD) to CAMM and by the Ministry of Culture of the Czech Republic (DKRVO 2016/15, National Museum, 00023272).

References

Attems, C. (1930) Myriapoda 2. Scolopendromorpha. Das Tierreich, 54, 1–308. Bonato, L., Chagas-Júnior, A., Edgecombe, G. D., Lewis, J. G. E., Minelli, A., Pereira, L. A., Shelley, R. M., Stoev, P. & Zapparoli, M. (2016) ChiloBase 2.0 - A World Catalogue of (Chilopoda). Available at http://chilobase.biologia.unipd.it. Bonato, L., Edgecombe, G. D., Lewis, J. G. E., Minelli, A., Pereira, L. A., Shelley, R. M. & Zapparoli, M. (2010) A common terminology for the external anatomy of centipedes (Chilopoda). ZooKeys, 69: 17–51. doi: 10.3897/zookeys.69.737 Bücherl, W. (1942) Catalogo dos Quilópodos da zona Neotrópica. Memorias do Instituto Butantan, 15: 251– 372. Bücherl, W. (1974) Die Scolopendromorpha der Neotropischen Region. Symposia of the Zoological Society of London No. 32: 99–133. Crabill, R. E., Jr. (1958) A new schendylid from the eastern United States, with notes on distribution and morphology (Chilopoda: Geophilomorpha: Schendylidae). Entomological News, 69: 153–160. Crabill, R. E., Jr. (1960) A new American genus of cryptopid centipedes, with an annotated key to the scolopendromorph genera from America north of Mexico. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 111: 1–15.

412

MARTÍNEZ-MUÑOZ ET AL.

Cupul-Magaña, F. G. (2009) Lista nominal de especies de ciempiés (Chilopoda) para México. Biocyt, 2 (6): 48–54. Cupul-Magaña, F. G. (2013) La diversidad de los ciempiés (Chilopoda) de México. Dugesiana, 20 (1): 17– 41. Cupul-Magaña, F. G., Pacheco-López, S., Bueno-Villegas, J. & Figueroa de la Rosa, I. (2015) Neotype Designation for the Scolopendra pomacea Koch, 1847 (Chilopoda: Scolopendromorpha: Scolopendridae: Scolopendrinae). Southwestern Entomologist, 40 (1): 245–249. Dolejš, P. (2014) Type specimens of centipedes (Myriapoda: Chilopoda) in the National Museum, Prague (Czech Republic). In: Tuf, I. H. & K. Tajovský (Eds.), 16th International Congress of Myriapodology. Book of Abstracts. Olomouc: Institute of Soil Biology, BC ASCR & Faculty of Science, Palacký University: 20. Dolejš, P. (2015) Type specimens of centipedes (Myriapoda, Chilopoda) in the National Museum, Prague (Czech Republic). In: Tuf IH, Tajovský K (Eds.) Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Myriapodology, Olomouc, Czech Republic. ZooKeys, 510: 5–14. doi: 10.3897/zookeys.510.8636 Flores-Guerrero, U. S., Cupul-Magaña, F. G., Bueno-Villegas, J. & Rodríguez-López, E. (2015) Adenda y corrigenda de Dugesiana 20 (1): 17–41, la diversidad de los ciempiés (Chilopoda) de México. Dugesiana, 22 (2): 69–80. ICZN. (1999) International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Fourth Edition. The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, London, UK. 306 pp. Le Bras, G., Geoffroy, J.-J., Albenga, L. & Mauriès, J.-P. (2015) The Myriapoda and Onychophora collection (MY) of the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle (MNHN, Paris). ZooKeys, 518: 139– 153. doi: 10.3897/zookeys.518.10223 Lewis, J. G. E., Edgecombe, G. D. & Shelley, R. M. (2005) A proposed standardised terminology for the external taxonomic characters of the Scolopendromorpha (Chilopoda). Fragmenta Faunistica, 48: 1– 8. Minelli, A., Bonato, L., Dioguardi, R., Chagas-Júnior, A., Edgecombe, G. D., Lewis, J. G. E., Pereira, L. A., Shelley, R. M., Stoev, P., Uliana, M. & Zapparoli, M. (2006-2015) CHILOBASE. A web resource for Chilopoda . Formerly available at http://chilobase.bio.unipd.it Moritz, M. & Fischer, S.-C. (1979) Die Typen der Myriapoden-Sammlung des Zoologischen Museums Berlin. II. Chilopoda. Mitteilungen aus dem Zoo1ogischen Museum in Berlin, 55 (2): 297–352. Rack, G. (1974) Die entomologischen sammlungen des Zoologischen Instituts und Zoologischen Museums der Universität Hamburg. III. Teil (Nachtrag) Chilopoda und Progoneata. Mitteilungen aus dem Naturhistorischen Museum und Institut in Hamburg, 70: 105–118. Shelley, R. M. (2006) A chronological catalog of the New World species of Scolopendra L., 1758 (Chilopoda: Scolopendromorpha: Scolopendridae). Zootaxa, 1253: 1–50. Stoev, P. & Beron, P. (2000) On type specimens of Myriapoda (Chilopoda, Diplopoda) in the collection of the National Museum of Natural History in Sofia. Arthropoda Selecta, 9 (2): 91–102. Verhoeff, K. W. (1934) Beiträge zur Systematik und Geographie der Chilopoden. Zoologische Jahrbücher, Abteilung für Systematik, 66: 1–112. Weidner, H. (1960) Die Entomologischen Sammlungen des Zoologischen Staatsinstituts und Zoologischen Museums Hamburg. III. Teil. Chilopoda und Progoneata. Mitteilungen aus dem Hamburgischen Zoologischen Museum und Institut, 58: 57–104. Wheeler, T. A., Huber, J. T. & Currie, D. C. (2001) Label Data Standards for Terrestrial . Biological Survey of Canada (Terrestrial Arthropods), Document Series No. 8: 1–20.

Ecol. Mont., 7, 2016, 405-413 413