Megaphyllum projectum projectum Verhoeff, 1894
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.3741.1.2 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:BF5EA9B8-C6F4-448A-BEF9-1976AB4EC308 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6151714 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03C887D3-FFF0-FFBD-FF34-9D8AFD12A901 |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Megaphyllum projectum projectum Verhoeff, 1894 |
status |
|
Megaphyllum projectum projectum Verhoeff, 1894 View in CoL
Figs 4j–l View FIGURES 4 a – l
Julus austriacus: Latzel 1884: 296 –300, partim.
Megaphyllum projectum Verhoeff, 1894 : Verhoeff 1894d: 323–324, no figures. Brachyiulus austriacus Latz. ssp. projectus: Verhoeff 1896 a: Figs 27–28. Brachyiulus projectus: Verhoeff 1897b: 111 –112.
Brachyiulus projectus var. alticolus Verhoeff, 1897b: 112 , Fig. III. Brachyiulus projectus alticolus: Verhoeff 1907: 303 , 305, Figs 10–12 View FIGURES 10 a – g View FIGURES 11 a – g View FIGURES 12 a – g . Brachyiulus projectus dioritanus Verhoeff, 1907: 303 , 305, Figs 5–8 View FIGURES 5 a – g View FIGURES 7 a – g View FIGURES 8 a – f . Brachyiulus projectus kochi Verhoeff, 1907: 302 , 304, Figs 3 View FIGURES 3 a – f , 9 View FIGURES 9 a – g partim. Chromatoiulus projectus projectus: Attems 1929: 331 .
Chromatoiulus (Chromatoiulus) projectus projectus: Lokšina & Golovatch 1979: 385 . Chromatoiulus (Chromatoiulus) projectus: Attems 1940: 306 .
Chromatoiulus proiectus: Haacker & Fuchs 1972: 191 .
Chromatoiulus projectus: Strasser 1966a: 210 .
Brachyiulus projectus dioritanus: Verhoeff 1927: 121 .
Chromatoiulus projectus dioritanus: Schubart 1934a: 280 , Fig. 437. Chromatoiulus projectus var. dioritanus: Szalay 1940: 8 –9; 1943: 141–142. Megaphyllum projectum dioritanum: Korsós 1994: 38 .
Megaphyllum projectus dioritanus: Giurginca et al. 2007: 236 .
Megaphyllum (Chromatoiulus) projectus dioritanus: Gulička 1985a: 120 . Megaphyllum projectum: Hoffman 1980: 104 ; Enghoff & Kime 2009. Megaphyllum projectum projectum: Lazányi & Korsós 2011: 45 –49, Figs 1–8 View FIGURES 1 a – e View FIGURES 2 a – f View FIGURES 3 a – f View FIGURES 4 a – l View FIGURES 5 a – g View FIGURES 7 a – g View FIGURES 8 a – f ; 2012: 4, 21, 40.
Material examined. Inv. Nr. 8133, 4♂, Ungarn, Siebenbürgen, Kroatien, [ Hungary, Romania and Croatia], 1919, don. Latzel, Ch. austriacus sensu Latzel det. Attems (NHMW); Hungary: 1♂, 1♀, Fényi-erdő, Bátorliget, from under barks, leaf-litter sifting and singling, 2011.05.28., leg. Novák J. (HNHM); Romania: 1♂, 1juv., Medgyes [Mediaş], leg. Dr. Tömösváry Ö., 830/1888, Rev. Loksa 55/1955 (HNHM); Serbia: ZMB 1846: 2♂, 4♀, 13 juv., Julus austriacus Syntypen, “ J. fasciatus C. L. Koch Name ungiltig!”, Serbien (MNB); Slovakia: 1♂, Körtvélyes [Hrušov], leg. Raisz G., 830/1888, Julus austriacus var. nigrescens det. Dr. Daday, Revid. Loksa 56/1955 (HNHM).
Distribution. Austria: Graz (type locality) Innsbruck, Isel (Thaler et al. 1993), Feldbach, Gleisdorf, Oberaudorf (Lazányi & Korsós 2011); Croatia: Vidovec, Želesnica, Tužno (Attems 1929); Istria (Lazányi & Korsós 2011); Germany: Grünkopf, Partenkirchen (Lazányi & Korsós 2011); Hungary: (Loksa 1984, Korsós 1994) Nagy-Szénás (Sallai 1992); Bátorliget (Szlávecz & Loksa 1992); Aggteleki National Park (Lazányi & Korsós 2009); Misina and Tubes (Gebhardt 1964); Mecsek (Gebhardt 1966); Bükk (Loksa 1968b); Bakony (Loksa 1971); Pilis (Loksa 1988); Kecske cave (Szalay 1940); Kőszegi Mts (Szalay 1943); Italy: Vipiteno (Lazányi & Korsós 2011); Republic of Moldova: Brǎseu, Socola, Bǎrnova (Jawłowski 1935); Romania: Făgăraş (Gava 2004); Judeţul Vrancea (Tăbăcaru 1976); Podu Olt (Ceuca et al. 1983); Valea Arieşului (Crişan 1999); Slovakia: Kremnica (Lazányi & Korsós 2011); Slovenia: Lower Carniolan (Dolenjska) hillside and Gorjanci Mt. (Strasser 1966a).
Diagnosis. Differs from the most similar subspecies M. p. kochi by having larger and more bulging promeres (P) (see Fig. 4j View FIGURES 4 a – l in comparison with 4e) and better developed apical serrated lobe (sl) of the promere—discernible not only from posterior but also from meso-posterior view ( Fig. 4j View FIGURES 4 a – l ).
Both processes of the opisthomere ( Fig. 4k View FIGURES 4 a – l ) (ap and pp) well-developed; the solenomere’s posterior process (psp) generally elongated, mostly—at least slightly, depending on individual variation—longer than the anterior process (asp).
Body length and height: males: 25.9–53.9mm, 1.8–3.2mm; females: 30–51.9mm, 2.6–4.2mm.
Remarks. Nominotypical subspecies of the Megaphyllum type species, distributed in the southern half of the species’ distribution range, with a northern border formed by the Carpathians and the Alps; its taxonomic status has been recently clarified by Lazányi & Korsós (2011).
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |