Strigamia pusilla Seliwanoff, 1884
- GBIF Backbone Taxonomy
- Strigamia pusilla
Strigamia pusilla Seliwanoff 1884
Strigamia pusilla ( Seliwanoff, 1884 )
Synonyms: Scolioplanes perkeo Verhoeff, 1935 ; Scolioplanes pseudopusillus Loksa, 1962 .
References for morphology: Seliwanoff 1884 ; Verhoeff 1935 (sub Scolioplanes perkeo ); Loksa 1962 (sub Scolioplanes pseudopusillus ); Kaczmarek 1981 (sub Strigamia perkeo ); Zalesskaja et al.1982 ; Dányi 2006 .
Taxonomic notes. It was described originally as a species of Scolioplanes by Seliwanoff ( 1884 ) , but the name was introduced previously by Seliwanoff ( 1881 ) as a “nomen nudum” because it was not accompanied by a description. Other specimens were identified later. It was first assigned to Strigamia by Dobroruka ( 1960 ) and its validity was never questioned.
Scolioplanes perkeo was described by Verhoeff ( 1935 ) . After examination of representative specimens, Dobroruka ( 1955 ) did not find any morphological difference with respect to S. pusilla and therefore synonymized it under the latter, acknowledging that it could be maintained at most as a subspecies. Indeed, it was repeatedly cited as a distinct subspecies S. pusilla perkeo by most subsequent authors (e.g., Kaczmarek 1981 ). However, as already done by Pereira ( 2009 ) , we confirm here S. perkeo as a synonym of S. pusillus because no evidence exists for differences in morphology. Moreover, the male holotype of S. perkeo and the two syntypes of S. pusillus were described as differing only in the number of legs ( 33 pairs in the male S. perkeo , 35 in the male S. pusillus and 37 in the female S. pusillus ) and the number of coxal pores (lower in S. perkeo , which is however also smaller than the syntypes of S. pusillus ). Both putative differences are very slight and within the expected interindividual variation. It is worth noting that Verhoeff ( 1935 ) introduced S. perkeo without mentioning its distinction with respect to S. pusilla .
Scolioplanes pseudopusillus was described by Loksa ( 1962 ) , and no other specimens have been recorded since. The species was cited rarely and eventually synonymized under S. pusillus by Zalesskaja et al. ( 1982 ) . We agree with the synonymy because Loksa ( 1962 ) acknowledged explicitly that S. pseudopusillus could be distinguished from S. pusillus only for the relatively higher number of ventral pores, however the number of the latter is well known to increase with individual growth in Strigamia ( Horneland & Meidell 2009 ) and is variable between specimens.
Distribution: from Sudetes, Carpathians and Caucasus, to central Siberia and Mongolia .
- Bonato, Lucio, László Dányi, Antonio Augusto Socci, and Alessandro Minelli, 2012: Species diversity of Strigamia Gray, 1843 (Chilopoda: Linotaeniidae): a preliminary synthesis. Zootaxa, vol. 3593. 1-39.