Arrup sauteri ( Silvestri, 1919 )

Published, First, 2007, The Mecistocephalidae of the Japanese and Taiwanese islands (Chilopoda: Geophilomorpha), Zootaxa 1396, pp. 1-84 : 11-13

Arrup sauteri ( Silvestri, 1919)

Fig. 8

[1] Prolamnonyx sauteri Silvestri 1919 — Rec. Ind. Mus. 16: 87; fig. 26 (original description, key)

Prolamnonyx santeri [sic]: Chamberlin 1920a — Can. Ent. 52: 187

Prolamnonyx sauteri: Attems 1929 — Das Tierr. 52: 155 (key)

Prolamnonyx sauteri: Takakuwa 1934a — Annot. Zool. Japon. 14: 363

Prolamnonyx sauteri: Takakuwa 1934c — Bot. & Zool. Tokyo 2: 884

Prolamnonyx sauteri: Takakuwa 1938a — Annot. Zool. Japon. 17: 355

Prolamnonyx sauteri: Takakuwa 1938b — Bot. & Zool. Tokyo 6: 2030 (key)

Prolamnonyx sauteri: Takakuwa 1940 — Fauna Nippon. 9: 92

Prolamnonyx sauteri: Takakuwa 1943 — Bull. Biogeogr. Soc. Japan 13: 196

Prolamnonyx sauteri: Attems 1947 — Ann. Naturhistor. Mus. Wien 55: 105 (key)

[2] Prolamnonyx sauteri: Wang 1959 — Quart. J. Taiwan Mus. 12: 196

Arrup sauteri: Crabill 1964 — Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington 77: 165

Prolamnonyx sauteri: Viggiani 1973 — Boll. Lab. Ent. agraria Napoli 30: 377

Prolamnonyx sauteri: Titova 1975 — Zool. Zh. 54: 45

Prolamnonyx sauteri: Wang & Mauriès 1996 — Mém. Mus. natn. Hist. Nat. Paris 169: 89

Arrup sauteri: Foddai et al. 2003 — J. Nat. Hist. 37: 1261

Diagnosis. An Arrup species with body length reaching at least 5 cm. Frontal line curved. Distal article of the telopodite of the second maxillae without claw. Tooth of the forcipular article I very small, other articles untoothed. Sternum of the last leg­bearing segment longer than wide.

Type material. Syntypes: number unknown, both sexes; at least one specimen 47 mm long, adult ( Silvestri, 1919).

Type locality. ‘ Kosempo’ , Taiwan ( Silvestri, 1919) .

Depository of type material. Coll. F. Silvestri ( Viggiani, 1973), Museo Civico di Storia Naturale " G. Doria ", Genova .

Material examined. None.

Description. Body length of adults reaching at least about 5 cm. Body colour ochreous­testaceous. Head about 1.5 times as long as wide, frontal line curved. Clypeal setae: about 5 pairs of long setae at least in the posterior part of the areolate clypeus, near the plagulae, including a median pair and two pairs near the lateral edge. Labrum: anterior ala triangular, medial margin reduced to a vertex; internal margins of side­pieces parallel, not touching each other; posterior margin of each side­piece sinuous, slightly convex close to the internal and external ends. Mandible: about 8 lamellae; first lamella with 6 teeth; average intermediate lamella with about 14 teeth, the teeth similar to each other. First maxillae: distal lobe of medial projection small and attenuate, not clavate at the tip, curved inwards; distal lobe of telopodite attenuate and curved inwards; several long setae on both medial projections and telopodites. Second maxillae: article I of the telopodite about 2.8 times as long as wide, article III about 2.5 times as long as wide, with several long setae; apical claw absent. Forcipular segment: width to length ratio of exposed part of coxosternum 1.2; each pleuron without a distinct dorsal ridge. Forcipules: article I about 1.5 times as long as wide, with a very small, almost indistinct, distal tooth; forcipular articles II, III and tarsungulum without teeth. Last leg­bearing segment: sternum subtriangular about 1.3 times as long as wide; about 50 pores on each coxopleuron; telopodites with many short setae.

Distribution in the considered area.

Taiwan: ‘ Kosempo’ [1] (type locality); ‘Kwan Tze Ling’ [2] .

General distribution. Taiwan.

Remarks. Besides the characters listed in the diagnosis, another peculiar character of this species is probably found in the shape of clypeal plagulae, which are distinctly wider than in other known Arrup species (in the original drawing the ratio of width to length is about 2.7).

Silvestri (1919) listed Mecistocephalus smithi Pocock, 1895 as a synonym of A. sauteri , but the synonymy was neither discussed nor followed by subsequent authors; the characters of the two nominal species are so different that the synonymy has to be rejected.