University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Center for Systematic Entomology, Gainesville, Insecta Mundi Florida March 1991 Systematics and biogeography of Marsikomerus Attems, 1938, a misunderstood genus of centipedes (Geophilomorpha: Schendylidae) Richard L. Hoffman Martinsville, VA Luis A. Pereira La Plata, Argentina Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/insectamundi Part of the Entomology Commons Hoffman, Richard L. and Pereira, Luis A., "Systematics and biogeography of Marsikomerus Attems, 1938, a misunderstood genus of centipedes (Geophilomorpha: Schendylidae)" (1991). Insecta Mundi. 406. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/insectamundi/406 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Center for Systematic Entomology, Gainesville, Florida at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Insecta Mundi by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Vol. 5, No. 1, March 1991 45 Systematics and biogeography of Marsikomerus Attems, 1938, a misunderstood genus of centipedes (Geophilomorpha: Schendylidae) Richard L. Hoffman Virginia Museum of Natural History Martinsville, VA 241 12 and Luis A. Pereira Museo de la Plata 1900 - La Plata, Argentina Abstract trail as far as existing materials permit, and Marsikomerus (Attems 1938) is transferred present here results of our inquiries: at least some from Geophilidae to Schendylidae, and shown to be questions have been answered and some contingent a senior synonym of Simoporus (Chamberlin 1940) difficulties defined for future attention. and Lanonyx (Chamberlin 1953). The type species M. pacificus is redescribed and illustrated in detail Taxonomy from the holotype; similar but less extensive treatment is provided for M. lanaius and M. texan- Family Schendylidae Cook us. The value of some traditionally used charac- ters and the distribution of the genus (Hawaii, Genus Marsikomerus Attems southwestern United States, northern Mexico) are discussed. Marsikomerus Attems, 1938, Proc. Zool. Soc. Lon- don, (B) 108(II): 372. Type species, M. pacif- Introduction icus Attems, by monotypy. In his 1938 report on myriapods from the ?Mexiconyx Chamberlin, 1922, Psyche 29(1):9. Hawaiian Islands, C. Attems described a new Type species, M. hidalgoensis Chamberlin, by genus and species of geophilomorph centipede original designation. under the name Marsikomeruspacificus. Although Attems referred his genus to the family Geophil- ?Holitys Cook, 1899, Proc. Ent. Soc. Washington, idae, various details in both the description and 4:304. Type species, H. neomexicana Cook, by drawings suggested to us that M. pacificus was monotypy. actually a schendylid. Resolution of the problem, sufficiently desirable in itself, was also mandated Simoporus Chamberlin, 1940, Ent. News, 51:109. by the possibility of an error in identification or Type species, S. texanus Chamberlin, by origi- labeling - the Hawaiian Islands not being notable nal designation. NEW SYNONYMY! as a center for chilopod differentiation. Toward this end the holotype of M. pacificus Simoporus: Chamberlin, 1943, Bull. Univ. Utah, was obtained for study. Anybody familiar with the 33(6): 12, 15. tangled skein of chilopod taxonomy will not be sur- prised to learn that establishment of the taxonomic ?Morunguis Chamberlin, 1943, Bull. Univ. Utah, position of Marsikomerus, easy enough as the first 33(6):15. Type species, M. morelus step, immediately led into a labyrinth of systematic Chamberlin, by original designation. problems only partially amenable to solution at the present time. Nonetheless, we have followed the 46 Insecta Mundi Figures 1 - 6. Marsikomerus pacificus Attems, female holotype. 1. Clypeus and first antemomere. 2. Labrum. 3.Ist and 2nd maxillae, ventral surface. 4. Right lateroposterior sector of 2nd maxillae, ventral surface. 5. Left telopodite of 2nd maxillae, dorsal surface. 6. Head, proximal antennomeres, and tergum of prehensorial segment, dorsal surface. Vol. 5, No. 1, March 1991 Simoporus: Chamberlin, 1947, Ent. News, found in Hawaii. Lanonyx was diagnosed as a new 58(6): 147. genus distinct from Mexiconyx and Plesioschendyla in lacking sternal pore fields. Marsicomerus [sic] Attems, 1947, Annln Naturh. Since our study of the holotype of L. lanaius Mus. Wien, 55:107, 128. shows that such pores do occur on the anterior sterna, the basis for separation from Plesioschen- Lanonyx Chamberlin, 1953, Great Basin Natur., dyla becomes the nonpectinate 2nd maxillary claw 13(3-4):75. Type species, L. lanaius and absence of an unguiform ultimate pretarsus in Chamberlin, by original designation. NEW the latter. According to Chamberlin, Mexiconyx SYNONYMY! hidalgoensis differs by having longer prehensors. It is perhaps not too harsh a judgement of our Marsukomerus [sic]: Chamberlin, 1953, Great predecessor to note that many of his "new" geo- Basin Natur., 13 (3-41535. philoid taxa were based on single characters later found to be the result of faulty observation. The Simoporus: Crabill, 1961, Ent. News, 72:31, 36, term "mirage taxonomy" has some appeal as a 78. descriptor of Chamberlinian methodology. The next reference to Marsikomerus appeared Diagnosis: Pleurites of 2nd maxillae not fused in 1947, in Attems' attempt to update his 1929 with coxosternum; apical claw of 2nd maxillae "Tierreich" treatment. Here the genus was entered pectinate on both dorsal and ventral edges; sterna in the second couplet of a key to genera of the with ventral pore fields; last pair of legs with Geophilinae, and cataloged on a subsequent page seven podomeres (the pretarsus in the form of a with literature reference; in both cases the invalid well-developed claw); coxopleurae of last pedal emendation "Marsicomerus" was used, without segment each with an internal gland of simple explanation. In the key, Marsikomerus was set off structure ("homogeneous" in the terminology of from other genera by the combination of unipartite Brolemann & Ribaut, 1912), not ramose or lobed. labrum, pectinate second maxillary claw, and large coxal gland of the ultimate legs, all such obviously Distribution: Southwestern United States (Ar- schendylid characters that one can scarcely credit kansas, Texas), Mexico (Nuevo Leon), Hawaiian the idea of an Attemsian mistake. The omission of Islands (Fig. 60), see also discussion under the any reference to mandibular structure, normally a heading "Biogeography", p. 56. sine qua non in Attems' chilopod work, even sug- gests the possibility of a deliberate legerdemain Synonymy: The direct comparison of holotypes of put forth to test the perception of his colleagues the type species of the three nominal genera listed and successors. above shows that all are congeneric. Finally, in 1953, Chamberlin listed M. pacificus In the original description of Marsikomerus, in his paper on geophiloids of the Pacific region, Attems placed the genus in the subfamily Geophil- consistently with the misspelling Marsukomerus, inae without any comparison with possible relat- placing the genus in the "Pachymerinidae" with ives, making only the comment that "Diese Gat- only the comment that the genus resembled Hon- tung unterscheidet sich von den mir bekannten uaphilus "in having a single large coxal pit on each Geophilinae durch die eigentiimliche Driise der side..." Endbeine ..." Curiously he neither described nor Three other possible synonyms of Marsikome- figured the mandibles; had he done so their rus remain to be accounted through future studies. obviously schendylid form (cf. out Figs. 7 and 8) First is Holitys (Cook, 1899), based on a specimen would have precluded his astonishing familial from the Organ Mountains, New Mexico, which misidentification. Simoporus was, of course, estab- Cook named Holitys neomexicanus. This is obvi- lished with no reference whatever to Marsiko- ously a schendylid but the original description fails merus. For unknown reasons Chamberlin later to mention a number of important points, and the (1953: 85)~onsideredthe latter to be a genus in type is no longer available. Geographically, Holitys the Pachymeriidae, and in any event, it is incon- falls into the right area for consideration as conge- ceivable that he would have ever suspected a neric with Marsikomerus, and the possibility of Texan geophilomorph to be congeneric with one their identity was raised already by Crabill in Insecta Mundi 1961. However, no further action on this situation is any more "natural" than one in which pores may can be taken until somebody is able to collect be missing or present only on a few segments. If topotypic material of neomexicanus at Dripping there are no other substantiating differences, Springs in the Organ Mountains. If H. neomexica- perhaps the pore field character distinguishes only nus is found to be congeneric with M. pacificus, species, not genera. obviously Holitys must be resurrected as the senior For the present, we defer to previous practice, name with 40 years priority. and retain Morunguis until an adequate series of The original description of Mexiconyx hidalgo- topotypes is available for study, but with the ensis (Chamberlin, 1922) suggests that this species, prediction that such material will provide the also, might be congeneric with M, pacificus, but it demise of this genus. too fails to provide necessary structural details. To carry the parallelism with Holitys one step further, Key to the recognized species of Marsiko- the type of M. hidalgoensis cannot be found at the merus