Clinopodes escherichii ( Verhoeff, 1896 )

Bonato, Lucio, Iorio, Étienne & Minelli, Alessandro, 2011, The centipede genus Clinopodes C. L. Koch, 1847 (Chilopoda, Geophilomorpha, Geophilidae): reassessment of species diversity and distribution, with a new species from the Maritime Alps (France), Zoosystema 33 (2), pp. 175-205 : 186-187

Clinopodes escherichii ( Verhoeff, 1896)

TYPE MATERIAL AND TYPE LOCALITY. — 2 ♀♀, 1 ơ, and another probable ơ, syntypes ; from “Pera” (= Beyoglu [ Turkey]) ( Verhoeff 1896).

SYNONYMS. — Geophilus flavidus ankarensis Verhoeff, 1945 : n. syn. (see notes below) (type material and type locality: unknown number of syntypes, from Ankara [ Turkey]). — Geophilus flavidus kurdistanus Verhoeff, 1945 : n. syn. (see notes below) (type material and type locality: unknown number of syntypes, from Gaziantep [ Turkey]).

NOMINAL SUBSPECIES. — None.

MAIN REFERENCES. — Verhoeff 1896:2 (originaldescription, as Geophilus flavidus escherichii ); Verhoeff 1898:343 (in key); Attems 1901:285 (redescription); Attems 1903:223 (inkey); Attems 1929a: 202 (in key), 204 (redescription); Verhoeff 1943b:140 (redescription); Verhoeff 1945: 318 (redescription), 319 (original description of G. flavidus ankarensis and G. flavidus kurdistanus ); Attems 1947: 120 (in key); Kanellis 1959: 38 (in key); Dărăbanţu & Matic 1969: 102 (in key); Matic 1972a: 76 (in key), 81 (redescription).

MATERIAL EXAMINED. — Turkey. Camlidere, 19.VIII.1980 A. Valle lg., 1 ♀ (43 mm, 73 leg pairs), 1 ơ (53 mm, 67 leg pairs) (coll. MB). — Boltoz DaĞ, VI.1983 M. Meregalli lg, 1 ♀ (55 mm, 67 leg pairs) (coll. MB). — Ilgar DaĞ, near Kastamonu, 11.VII.1975 G. Osella lg, 1 ♀ (58 mm, 67 leg pairs) (coll. MB). — Spil DaĞI, near Manisa, 14.VIII.1972 A. Valle lg, 1 ơ (51 mm, 65 leg pairs) (coll. MB). — Uludag, near Bursa, 24.VIII.1969 V. Nobile lg, 1 ơ (45 mm, 59 leg pairs) (coll. MB).

DIAGNOSIS. — A Clinopodes species up to c. 6 cm long; 59-71 pairs of legs in the male, 63-73 in the female; denticles of the forcipular coxosternite relatively short, distinctly wider than long; chitin-lines reaching or almost reaching the condyles; the largest sternal pore-fields on the posterior leg-bearing segments reaching or even extending beyond the mid-length of the metasternite; all canals of the coxal organs converging into two or three poorly recognizable clusters aligned along the lateral margin of the metasternite and frequently covered by it; usually no isolated pores. See also Table 3 and key to species.

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION. — Most part of the Balkan Peninsula north to Carpathians, regions north of the Black Sea, Aegean islands and Anatolia. Some specimens from throughout the Italian Peninsula and even close to the Western Prealps have been referred to this taxon erroneously ( Manfredi 1933; Matic 1971; Matic & Dărăbantzu 1971; Minelli 1979), as indicated by some of the same authors ( Manfredi 1957; Minelli & Zapparoli 1992; Foddai et al. 1995; Zapparoli & Testa 1995).

TAXONOMIC AND NOMENCLATURAL NOTES Clinopodes escherichii was originally described by Verhoeff (1896) as a subspecies of Geophilus flavidus (currently Clinopodes flavidus ) and was generally maintained as such during the first half of the 20th century (e.g., Verhoeff 1925b, 1943b, 1945; Attems 1901, 1929a; Muralewicz 1926; Chamberlin 1952; Kanellis 1959). It was first cited at the species rank and assigned to the genus Clinopodes by Ribaut (1912), but was treated generally at this rank only much later (e.g., Attems 1947; Dobroruka 1958; Matic 1972a; Kos 1992), even though some modern authors did not distinguish it from C. flavidus (e.g., Stoev 2001a; Zapparoli 2002). Our direct examination of specimens confirmed the morphological differences given in the literature ( Table 3), thus supporting its recognition as a distinct species.

NOTES ON NEW SYNONYMIES

Both Geophilus flavidus ankarensis and Geophilus flavidus kurdistanus were described by Verhoeff (1945), based on two series of specimens from near “ Ankara ” in central Anatolia and from “ Gaziantep ” in south-eastern Anatolia (both in Turkey) respectively. Both taxa have been almost completely neglected in the subsequent literature, and their validity has been explicitly questioned by Zapparoli (1999). According to the original description ( Verhoeff 1945), they both agree with C. escherichii , the only putative difference being in more widely separated antennae. However, this character has long been disregarded in geophilid taxonomy as its diagnostic value is low because of subjective evaluation and intraspecific variation. Moreover, the labrum of G. flavidus ankarensis was described as unusually lacking distinct projections, and the metasternite of the ultimate leg-bearing segment of G. flavidus kurdistanus was illustrated as remarkably elongate. However, these apparently peculiar characters can probably be explained by the fact that delicate structures were overlooked, namely the labral projections and the posterior margin of the ultimate metasternite, in the permanent microscopic slides prepared by K.W. Verhoeff. It is worth noting that the type locality of both G. flavidus ankarensis and G. flavidus kurdistanus are well within the known range of C. escherichii .