Strigamia epileptica Wood, 1862

Bonato, Lucio, Dányi, László, Socci, Antonio Augusto & Minelli, Alessandro, 2012, Species diversity of Strigamia Gray, 1843 (Chilopoda: Linotaeniidae): a preliminary synthesis, Zootaxa 3593, pp. 1-39 : 13-14

Strigamia epileptica Wood, 1862

Synonyms: Scolioplanes imperialis Brölemann, 1896 ; Linotaenia rubelliana Chamberlin, 1904 .

References for morphology: Wood 1862, 1865; Brölemann 1896 (sub Scolioplanes imperialis ); Chamberlin 1904 (sub Linotaenia rubelliana ), 1912b (sub Linotaenia laevipes ), 1954.

Taxonomic notes. Described originally as a species of Strigamia , it was then assigned also to Linotaenia , Scolioplanes or Tomotaenia. Chamberlin (1912b, 1954, 1963) considered S. epileptica as identical with two other species described by Wood in the same paper ( Wood 1862), namely S. laevipes and S. parviceps , and adopted first S. laevipes and later S. parviceps as the valid name for the species. Conversely, Crabill (1954a, 1962a) suggested adopting S. epileptica as the valid name because S. parviceps is actually of uncertain taxonomic position (see below under “Uncertain species”), while he did not take into account S. laevipes . Subsequent catalogues followed either Chamberlin’s later opinion ( Kevan 1983; Mercurio 2010) or Crabill’s ( Hoffman 1995). We agree with Crabill’s proposal in selecting S. epileptica as the valid name of the species, because it remains uncertain whether the name S. parviceps was originally applied to the same species (see below), whereas S. laevipes is recognized here as a distinct species.

Scolioplanes imperialis was described by Brölemann (1896) and Linotaenia rubelliana by Chamberlin (1904). Both were considered identical to S. epileptica by Chamberlin (1912b), who confirmed this opinion after examining the holotype of S. epileptica ( Chamberlin 1954, 1963), irrespective of the fact that he did not adopt S. epileptica as the valid name of the species (see above). Instead, Attems (1929) maintained both S. imperialis and L. rubelliana as distinct valid species, and Crabill (1962a) considered them of uncertain identity. The synonymy is confirmed here for both species because their type specimens, based on the published descriptions ( Brölemann 1896; Chamberlin 1904, 1963) are fully congruent with S. epileptica , also in some major diagnostic features of the latter including number of legs, aspect of pleuropretergite, shape of ultimate metasternite and arrangement of coxal pores.

Distribution: most of the western part of North America, along the Rocky Mountains, between British Columbia and California. Published records from more eastern regions need confirmation, because of possible confusion with other species.