Eupolybothrus (E.) litoralis graecus (Verhoeff) E. H. Eason, 1970

E. H. Eason, 1970, A redescription of the species of Eupolybothrus Verhoeff s. str. preserved in the British Museum (Natural History) and the Hope departement of Zoology Oxford (Chilopoda Lithobiomorpha), Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Zoology 19, pp. 289-310 : 307-308

Eupolybothrus (E.) litoralis graecus (Verhoeff) , n. comb.

Lithobius (Polybothrus) fasciatus graecus Verhoeff, 1899 , p. 434, fig. 1a.

MATERIAL EXAMINED. The following specimens, preserved in spirit, are present in the Verhoeff Collection of Myriapoda in the British Museum (Natural History) and are labelled " Lithobius fasciatus graecus Verhoeff. " “Greece” (Reg. no. 03.8.25.47-49 ):

An immature male 23 mm long in a fair state of preservation, a mutilated mature female about 26 mm long in two separate fragments lacking most of the appendages, and a mutilated immature female 22 mm long lacking most of the legs. Verhoeff’s (1899) original description of L. fasciatus graecus was based on a number of examples from several localities in southern Greece and it is probable that these specimens are part of the syntypical series.

DIAGNOSIS OF ADULT. As nominate subspecies except for the presence of one or two well-developed coxolateral spines on each of the 15th and sometimes also on each of the 14th or 12th to 14th legs.

DESCRIPTION OF ADULT. A mutilated and fragmented female only; detached telopodites of 14th and 15th legs seem to belong to this specimen and their characters are included in the following description.

Length: 26 mm; 15th leg 15 mm. Colour: uniform yellow. Antennae: broken. Ocelli: 1+4, 4, 4, 2. Prosternum: with 8+8 small teeth, the internal pair being only incipient; lateral spines peg-like, lateral to external teeth. Tergltes 2 as figures for E. l. litoralis (Fig. 11). Coxal pores: 20 to 30 very unequal in size in four rows on each of the 12th to 15th coxae. Glandular pores of 15th legs: as in E. l. litoralis .

Chaetotaxy of 14th and 15th legs

General setae: as in E. l. litoralis . Serlate setae: none of the 15th metatarsus; on the 14th metatarsus the external row well-defined but the internal row absent; on the 14th tarsus rather sparse. Spinous setae: as in E. l. litoralis .

Spinulation:

Coxolateral spines (VaC) present on each of the 12th to 15th legs; a well-developed 15th accessory apical claw.

Genitalia: as in E. fasciatus

IMMATURE STADIA

Male fifth post-larval stadium (pseudomaturus)

Differs from the adult in the following characters. Length: 23 mm. Antennae: three-fifths of body-length; of 45 articles. Ocelli: 1+4, 4, 2, 2. Prosternum: with 7+7 teeth; lateral spines setiform, lateral to external teeth. Coxal pores: 13 to 18. General setae of 14th and 15th legs: on the metatarsus about as long as the diameter of the article, on the tarsus about half the diameter of the article in length. Seriate setae of the 14th leg: on the metatarsus the internal row present but reduced to a few small setae; on the tarsus Very sparse. Setae of taft: absent. Scupltaring of 15th leg (left only): dorsal sulci of prefemur indistinct; basal femoral pit and internal femoral sulcus quite distinct but less well defined than in adults of E. l. litoralis ; external femoral sulcus indistinct; pore-free area occupying about the distal one-fifth of the internal aspect of femur with neither swelling nor fine pore-sieve. Sculpturing of 14th legs: dorsal sulci on prefemur and femur very faint. Spinalation: 15 VmT present; 14 DaC absent; two coxolateral spines on left 15th leg, one on right 15th leg, none on 12th to 14th legs. Genitalia: posterior border of genital sternite with a feeble median notch and about 8 marginal setae on either side; gonopods Very slender, basal article about half the length of distal article.

Female fifth post larval stadium (pseudomaturas)

Differs from the male in the following characters: Length: 22 mm. Antennae: 42 articles. Ocelli: 1+4, 3, 3, 1. Coxal pores: 13 to 16. Coxolateral spines: one on each of 14th and 15th legs. Genitalia: two small unequal spurs and a well-developed claw on each gonopod.

DISCUSSION. In his original description of Lithobius fasciatus graecas, Verhoeff (1899) mentions the relatively pale colour, the marked posterior emargination of the large tergites and the presence of one or two coxolateral spines on each 15th leg. The projecting posterior angles of the large tergites in Koch’s specimens of E. litoralis (Fig. 10) accentuate the general appearance of emargination and this character together with the pale colour and also the presence of a coxolateral spine on one 15th leg of a male from Rhodes leads to the suspicion that graecus may be identical with litoralis . However, Verhoeff (1899) describes the male 15th femur as resembling that of “fasciatus” and makes no mention of the chaetotaxy or pore-distribution on the 15th legs; later the same author (Verhoeff, 1941: 105), when discussing these characters, states that he had no material referable to graecas available for examination. We would therefore be uncertain as to the identity of graecus were it not for the specimens purchased from Verhoeff by the British Museum which show the same pore-distribution and almost the same chaetotaxy as E. litoralis ; the 15th femur of the single immature male shows just the sort of sculpturing to be expected in a comparable stadium of E. litoralis so there is little doubt that Verhoeff’s specimens of graecas and Koch’s specimens of lttoralis are conspecific. The slight deficiency in the seriate setae and the number of coxal pores of the former as compared with the latter is probably fortuitous but the presence of well-developed coxolateral spines in both mature and immature examples of graecas contrasts with their absence from all but one example of litoralis , and this specimen shows a small spine on the right side only.

In the present state of our knowledge of the distribution of these forms it cannot be more than a matter of opinion as to whether we regard the coxolateral spines as altogether unstable and graecus as identical with litoralis , or whether these spines should be regarded as characteristic of a subspecies from the mainland of Greece, occurring only occasionally in the nominate subspecies from the islands. The latter view has been adopted here although further collecting may well prove it to be incorrect.