The Myriapoda & Onychophora collection (MY) of the Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle (MNHN - Paris)

Study Extent

This collection is mainly used for studies on systematics and classification of myriapods and onychophorans. In regards to its size, its composition and the amount of nomenclatural type specimens it contains, it is a major collection for the studied fields. Moreover, it has revealed an important number of unexpected new taxa within its less studied parts. The collection from France and the Mediterranean areas, particularly Spain, have been extensively studied.

Sampling

As we mentioned above, the specimens deposited at the MNHN-MY collection come from various regions of the world, and were collected during different periods. Consequently, no single sampling protocol can be distinguished. Moreover, for most of the specimens, the sampling methodology is unknown, even if largely suspected to be direct hand collection. The aims of collecting and the associated supply put at the disposal of field collectors have indeed evolved much since the early ages of this collection.

Method steps

1. As we mentioned above, the specimens deposited at the MNHN-MY collection come from various regions of the world, and were collected during different periods. Consequently, no single sampling protocol can be distinguished. Moreover, for most of the specimens, the sampling methodology is unknown, even if largely suspected to be direct hand collection. The aims of collecting and the associated supply put at the disposal of field collectors have indeed evolved much since the early ages of this collection.

As depicted in Figure 1 and Figure 2, the dataset reflects the scientific activities of the researchers doing the digitization. Consequently, even though the collection taxonomically covers the whole myriapods and onychophorans, the dataset actually contains a majority of millipedes, and the totality of the onychophorans. As a result of this work in the last decades, these two collections are also more scattered than the others, with less specimens per batch, as depicted in Figure 3. The taxonomy used in this dataset reflects the one used in the collection. Similarly to most of the big historical collections it is in many ways outdated, and would be nearly impossible to update (Soberón & al. 2002, Gaston & al. 1992, Alroy 2002). Cross-checking it with taxonomical datasets such as the dataset NCBI taxonomy is then an important step while using it (ECAT development publisher). The Onychophorans collection contains 48 species plus 7 subspecies within 15 genera of the two actual families.

1. Animalia
   common name: animal rank: kingdom
2. Arthropoda
   common name: arthropod rank: phylum
3. Onychophora
   common name: velvet worm rank: phylum
4. Chilopoda
   common name: centipede rank: class
5. Diplopoda
   common name: millipede rank: class
6. Pauropoda
   rank: class
7. Symphyla
   rank: class
8. Udeonychophora
   rank: class
9. Euonychophora
   rank: order
10. Geophilomorpha
    rank: order
11. Lithobiomorpha
    rank: order
12. Scolopendromorpha
    rank: order
13. Scutigeromorpha
    rank: order
14. Callipodida
    rank: order
15. Chordeumatida
    rank: order
16. Glomerida
    rank: order
17. Glomeridesmida
    rank: order
18. Julida
    rank: order
19. Platydesmida
    rank: order
20. Polydesmida
    rank: order
21. Polyxenida
    rank: order
22. Polyzoniida
    rank: order
23. Siphonophorida
    rank: order
24. Sphaerotheriida
    rank: order
25. Spirobolida
    rank: order
26. Spirostreptida
    rank: order
27. Stemmiulida
    rank: order
28. Tetramerocerata
    rank: order

To date, no batches from this dataset have been georeferenced. Contemporary administrative countries, corresponding to where the specimens have been sampled, have however been included when possible. Although imperfect for biodiversity studies, an image of the collection events repartition using the ISO 3166 (ISO 2014), can be given. The two main parts of the collection have a different spatial repartition, due in part to the distribution of the taxa represented, but also to a different history. The myriapod dataset is a collection for “metropolitan France and the world”. Indeed, ca. 56.80% of the batches were collected in metropolitan France, but these batches represent ca. 72.64% of the total number of specimens in the collection. This can be explained by the fact that the number of specimens per batch collected in metropolitan France is significantly higher than the average number of specimens per batch for the rest of the world, including the French overseas territories. Even though the metropolitan French collection has been extensively studied (and consequently its batches have been split numerous times), they are still, on average, larger than the batches coming from the rest of the world. The distribution worldwide, as depicted in Figure 4 is not homogeneous. Both characteristics of the dataset, as well as the taxonomic coverage (see above) are the main focus of J.-M. Demange and J.-P. Mauriès’ research work. The studies of H.W. Brolemann over the fauna from Algeria, Brazil and the USA are clearly visible on Figure 5 (Brolemann 1896b, 1897, 1909, 1931, MyriaLit). Although it is highly probable that the amount of specimens from metropolitan France is over-represented in the dataset, compared to the whole physical collection, it is still the first geographical area of origin for the specimens of MNHN-MY. The same phenomenon is observed when interpreting the average number of specimen per batch, as depicted on Figure 6. With the exception of a few countries, the average number of specimen per batch is relatively low (average of 4.049 specimens per batch for the non-French specimens). Also, in the distribution of the type batches, France tends to be still over-represented in the dataset, though less drastically (see Figure 7). We suspect this is due to the fact that even though France is not a “hot spot” for myriapod biodiversity, it has been and still is an intensively studied area. In contrast with the myriapods, the onychophorans specimens come from different locations outside France, reflecting the ecology and distribution of the group. One could be surprised to notice in Figure 8 the importance of South Africa as geographical origin of the specimens in the collection. These specimens mainly come from institutional exchanges, driven by L.E. Bouvier between the MNHN and other institutes, such as the British Museum. The Figure 9 reflects the extensive and general work of description L.E. Bouvier made over these few specimens.