Newportia Gervais, 1847

Schileyko, Аrkаdy А., 2018, A contribution to the knowledge of the centipedes of Saint Barthélemy Island (French Antilles), with re-descriptions of Newportia heteropoda Chamberlin, 1918 and Cormocephalus impressus Porat, 1876 (Chilopoda: Scolopendromorpha), Zootaxa 4438 (1), pp. 59-78 : 61

Genus Newportia Gervais, 1847

Type-species. Newportia longitarsis (Newport, 1845) (by monotypy).

Range. Neotropics: from Mexico to Paraguay, including the Caribbean.

Remarks. А pectinate pretarsus (or claw) of the second maxilla is one of the diagnostic synapomorphies of the family Scolopocryptopidae ( Edgecombe & Bonato 2011); it has been described in detail based on SEM images by Koch et al (2010). Below I describe the morphological feature which may be studied using light microscopy only. This peculiarity concerns the clade that includes species of the subgenera Newportia s. str. and Tidops Chamberlin, 1915 (in sense of Vahtera et al. 2013). In these species, the pretarsus of maxillae 2 consists of two welldistinguishable parts: a dark brown basal and a semi-transparent apical one (Fig. 2, fig. 25 in Schileyko 2014). The basal part is of the usual size differing strongly from the apical one which is much thinner and delicate; the ventral surface of the latter shows a transparent, but well-developed fringed comb (not recognisable in Fig. 2). Four studied specimens of Newportia longitarsis virginensis Lewis, 1989 have both these parts of equal length and the pretarsus proper is considerably longer than half of article 3 of maxillae 2 telopodite. In N. ernsti Pocock, 1891 (No 7203, 7205), the apical, transparent part is much shorter—less than 1/3rd of pretarsus. А well-visible fringed comb on the ventral surface of the pretarsus is formed by a single row of transparent lamellae. Tidops collaris ( Kraepelin,1903) (No 6656, 6658) demonstrates certain conditions very similar to Newportia ernsti (No 7203, 7205) in that the apical, transparent part is well-developed, but very short compared to a chitinized basal part (ca 20% general length of the pretarsus).

In the related subfamily Scolopocryptopinae , such a neat subdivision of the pretarsus of maxillae 2 is much less obvious. For example, in specimens of Scolopocryptops melanostoma Newport, 1845 from Brazil (No 7173) and from West Papua (No 7503), the pretarsus is not subdivided into two halves, but only its tip is thin and semi- transparent (see fig. 4 in Schileyko & Stoev 2016). In Scolopendridae , the pretarsus is enlarged and strongly chitinized throughout its length (see figs 14, 21, 34 in Schileyko & Stoev 2016). Based on SEM images, Edgecombe & Koch (2008) showed that the pretarsus of maxillae 2 is also unipartite in the family Cryptopidae ; according to my observations it has no subdivision as described above. To summarize, this external peculiarity of maxillae 2 is characteristic of Scolopocryptopidae only, being much more strongly developed in Newportiinae as compared to Scolopocryptopinae .