Otostigmus species

Lewis, J. G. E., 2002, A re-examination of 11 species of Otostigmus from the Indo- Australian region described by R. V. Chamberlin based on type specimens in the collection of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard (Chilopoda; Scolopendromorpha; Scolopendridae), Journal of Natural History 36 (14), pp. 1687-1706 : 1705

Otostigmus species of R. V. Chamberlin 1705

suggesting, perhaps, a number greater than 20. The basal two antennomeres glabrous.

Forcipular coxosternal teeth 61 8, the median teeth worn (gure 60). Process of femoroid with two low lateral teeth (gure 61).

Tergites with complete paramedian sutures from 6 (5), marginate from 11 (8) and with ve or seven very weak longitudinal ridges from 12 to 18 (gure 62) (a weak median keel set oV by furrows and two lateral ones on each side on most plates). With many ne very short longitudinal ridges rather than spines in about 22 irregular rows from tergite 10. These are not shown in gure 62 and were not mentioned by Chamberlin. Tergite 21 with shallow depression occupying posterior 36%.

Some posterior sternites with very ne, short anterior paramedian sulci (sulci distinct across anterior border of sternites), without spines or tubercles. Sternite 21 narrowed posteriorly with hind border incurved (gure 63).

Coxopleural process moderately long, with two end spines, one subapical spine, no dorsal spine (gures 63, 64) (at the tip with two, laterally with three, none dorsally). Only the scars of the end spines on the right process.

A number of legs missing or loose in tube. Leg 1 with one tarsal spine, legs 6, 10, 11 and 14 with one tibial and two tarsal spines, leg 19 with one tarsal (1–19 with two, the 20th with one). End legs wanting (anal legs with femur smooth, wholly unarmed: a scar indicates probable presence of a tarsal spine).

Remarks

Chamberlin noted that ‘this species lies in the small group in which the anal legs are wholly unarmed. It is ... most like the Colombian O. burgeri Attems. ’ Based on this description, Attems (1930) placed the species in the subgenus Parotostigmus Pocock. Other species of the subgenus are known only from South America and North, East and West Africa but not South-East Asia.

As noted above, the end legs of the specimen are missing. It seems likely that Chamberlin mistook a loose leg 20, which is very long, for leg 21. In all other characters the specimen resembles O. (O.) loriae Silvestri, 1894 recorded from New Guinea, Aru Island ( Moluccas), the Philippines and Vietnam and if it is assumed that the end leg prefemur was spined then it runs down to this species in Attems’ (1930) key. There can be little doubt that it is that species.