á á PROVISIONAL ATLAS OF THE CENTIPEDES OF THE BRITISH ISLES BY A D BARBER and A N KEAY (BRITISH MYRIAPOD GROUP) INSTITUTE OF TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY LIBRARY SERVICE EDINBURGH LABORATORIES BUSH ESTATE, PENICUIK MIDLOTHIAN EH26 OQB BIOLOGICAL RECORDS CENTRE Natural Environment Research Council Institute of Terrestrial Ecology Monks Wood Experimental Station Huntingdon 1988 INSTITUTE OF TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY LIBRARY SERVICE 5 DEC1988 xt,t_sh sfS /10q COMMETS Page Foreword by Dr E H Eason Introduction 1 Validation 1 Arrangement of species 3 Data set 3 List of species mapped 8 Species not included in the maps and 9 habitat analysis Presentation of data 12 Standardization procedure 12 Species data categories 13 Species accounts and distribution maps 17 Habitat analysis — terrestrial species 107 1 First order habitats 108 2 Vegetation types 110 3 Altitude 111 4 Urban species 112 5 Coastal/inland 113 6 Microsites 114 7 Soil type 115 8 Horizon 116 Habitat analysis — seashore species 117 Rarity and conservation 119 Collecting techniques 122 Acknowledgements 124 References 125 Index of species 127 á FIGURES Page 1 The recordingcard RA14 (frontand back) 2 MAPS 1 Coveragemap 4 2 Vice—countiesand regions 15 3 Haplophilussubterraneus 20 4 Nesoporogasterbrevior 21 5 Hydroschendylasubmarina 22 6 Schendylanemorensis 25 7 Schendylapeyerimhoffi 26 8 Brachyschendyladentata 27 9 Heniavesuviana 30 10 Heniabrevis 31 11 Strigamiacrassipes 34 12 Strigamiaacuminata 37 13 Strigamiamaritima 39 14 Pachymeriumferrugineum 40 15 Clinopodeslinearis 42 16 Geophiluscarpohagus 45 17 Geophiluselectricus 47 18 Geophilusosquidatum 48 19 Geophilusfucorum seurati 49 20 Geophiluspusillifrater 50 21 Geophilusinsculptus 53 22 Geophilusproximus 54 23 Necrophloeophagusflavus 57 24 Brachygeophilustruncorum 60 25 Chalandeapinguis 61 26 Cryptopsanomalans 62 27 Cryptopshortensis 65 28 Cryptopsparisi 67 29 Lithobiusvariegatus 70 30 Lithobiusperegrinus 71 31 Lithobiusforficatus 74 32 Lithobiuspiceus 77 33 Lithobiusmelanops 80 34 Lithobiusmacilentus 82 35 Lithobiustricuspis 83 36 Lithobiusborealis 86 37 Lithobiuspilicornis 89 38 Lithobiuscalcaratus 92 39 Lithobiusmuticus 95 40 Lithobiuscrassipes 98 41 Lithobiuscurtipes 100 42 Lithobiusmicrops 103 43 Lamyrtesfulvicornis 106 á FOREWORD Centipedes, even if we include the larger, more colourful and venomous species found only in the tropics, have no obvious economic and only marginal medical importance, nor have they much aesthetic appeal. British species are even duller in these respects so it is hardly surprising that, in the past, they have suffered neglect at the hands of naturalists. Moreover, along with millipedes, they have always had a somewhat jocular image and have been the subject of a number of comic rBymes. However, all animal groups have much the same degree of interest to zoologists and ecologists and it is good to see centipedes taking their place among other hitherto more exhaustively studied invertebrates. When I started studying myriapods just after the war it was difficult to know where to begin. The papers by S G Brade-Birks in J h S h- ern ' 1 W K n and those of F A Turk in the North Western Naturalist were about the only works in English of much use to the beginner, and it was not until I met Gordon Blower in 1950, through the good offices of Dr Turk, that my studies began to take shape and I started to concentrate on centipedes. John Lewis's discovery, in 1960, of 3 new species of centipede at Ouckmere Haven gave a useful boost to the British list and publication of my book, h B • ' I le , in 1964 made identification of species easier. However, the first great landmark in the history of British myriapodology came with the formation of the British Myriapod Group in 1970 by, among others, Gordon Blower, Colin Fairhurst, Tony Barber and Des Kime. This gave tremendous impetus to our activities and Chalandea minzuis was added to the gradually expanding British list at our first field meeting near Lynton in Devonshire. But the emphasis was still on systematics and the identification of species and little was known of their natural history apart from a few rather vague generalizations, some of them misleading. Now comes the second great landmark, as far as centipedes are concerned, with the appearance of Barber and Keay's P ' • n 1 n d he Aritigkisleg This work gives details of the distribution, habitat preferences and general status of all known British species and, with statistical treatment, gives as true a picture as can be obtained from current records. The Atlas also points to gaps in our knowledge and will, I hope, act as a stimulus to further investigation, particularly of some of the smaller geophilomorphs. The authors, in collaboration with the Biological Records Centre, have done valuable work and it is a pleasure to write this foreword. E H Eason Bourton Far Hill Moreton-inHUarsh July 1987 á INTRODUCTION The centipede and millipede recording schemes date from the formation of the British Myriapod Group in 1970, with Dr C P Fairhurst, the prime instigator, being responsible for millipedes and one of the present authors (ADB) for centipedes. The schemes ran in parallel with the non—marine isopod recording scheme which had originally proposed habitat recording. The 3 schemes used identical record cards with relevant species lists for the 3 groups. An account of the centipede and millipede schemes is given by Barber and Fairhurst (1972), whilst the publication by Harding and Sutton (1985) represents the culmination of the recording of isopods. Those involved in the schemes were convinced that simple mapping, an then used by other recording schemes, could be extended to include habitat data. Although, to new recorders, it seemed to present a somewhat daunting task to complete these more complicated record cards (Figure 1), they were, with experience, generally able to complete at least a proportion of the habitat categories. Instructions were available on how to fill in the cards, but some collectors preferred to give only verbal habitat descriptions which could then be transferred to cards by the scheme organizers; however, this was not an ideal arrangement. There were, unfortunately, some ambiguities in the system, such as the fact that the scheme did not differentiate under, on or in for microsites or how coastal was to be interpreted in the region aof major estuary such as the Severn. Nevertheless, an appreciable quantity of data has been accumulated and it seems an opportune time to present this. From the start it was intended that data should be processed by computer, and the original RA14 card (Figure 1, p 2) was designed for transfer to 80---column punch cards. A straight transfer to these cards was possible with a punch card being generated for each species on a record card; the punch cards were then read into the computer. Preliminary results from the scheme for one or both myriapod groups- was given by Barber and Fairhurst (1972),. Fairhurst et al. (1978), Fairhurst and Armitage (1979) and Fairhurst (1983). A new record card (RA58) came into use in 1985, but data from these have, in general, not been included. Certain problems with organizing recording in Ireland have meant that there is only a small amount of Irish data. A provisional analysis of the millipede data was made in 1983 with 50—km maps (Fairhurst 1983). The present analysis is based on print—out from the Biological Records Centre, at the NERC Institute of Terrestrial Ecology's Monks Wood Experimental Station, but a preliminary analysis had been made by Colin Fairhurst at the University of Salford. VALIDATION The records have been validated by the scheme organizers. Validation wad based on the examination of initial specimens from most recorders, who then carried out their own identifications, referring on to the organizers any problematical or unusual material. For some collectors, and for certain surveys, we have examined most or all material on a regular or occasional basis. This identification work has not proved too onerous as it has been shared by several workers. All c011ectors are referred toEHEadon's Ceni de fhB 'hI (Eason 1964), which made the scheme viable in the first instance. This book is out of print and has become scarce, but some provisional keys have been prepared at various times to help recorders with identifications. Dr Eason has always Veen post willing to identify any particularly difficult specimens. 1 VI 111 01.61 fit .990 .90900 199.011 9999919 .9911 9010 099900 9.11 '71 99. 991111991999 199191 11.991,91.990.01 119991.99 .911.11 10(9904 1011 9911> 999 0 9119901 09191/9.1911.99919911, 99.9 1199.19.9 9.1.919111119 urons 999 11199 9910 99119.11.11.999.9 9990 119911991 11.11109. 199./.1991 .99 119901,91,4 pac, 11909990, 9.9999/1 1999. 99.1.1 . 1190 RuRln 1099.999 1.019119/19999 019.901 .11 ay Lu. IRO uu 99 1 MP 1.9•11 9,199a 91193 01911 99.0 290 9909.91 9.0 190 (") "' ;:;1f.'4:1;::N4„2grt019 0999 • - - - P11,03 .9/09 090, R.., Mr< 99. "'Au. 1.9999109. ..) 999090 19,90 1.91.11.0199 9911999. 919190 1911909.10.99 19.1 199111911 13.11.4 ,Jr..131 .0 100 .99 9.0 99, 11.991/11.09/3 pun. pc, 99(< .0,1 00 9.991.. 99 91.1 N.. 119 99.99 313, u.1.45 191 / • .11991.11991 991, 11.9 o.p..1 9s 45•1 / 1009 9999 9 /10 099 991.1109913 914 11.1:94.1 9991 99S pr. :9•119 sV:Vp I/ 1 It. pap 0.19 OS WS 21) 9.19911 919.9 901.9 ,< 9,99, ( 199 90.1 0193 203 9999 999S 1991/1 :(9199149999190 919 I 99,9 :pap 91=19 9) 0.9999.9.99.999, • 51-fl 1109.919191 I umos Iv ,00.9.11.1.0 171 3 .90,,, 1909.