Contributions to Zoology, 84 (3) – 2015Lucio Bonato; Alessandro Minelli; Leandro Drago; Luis Alberto Pereira: The phylogenetic position of Dinogeophilus and a new evolutionary framework for the smallest epimorphic centipedes (Chilopoda: Epimorpha)

To refer to this article use this url: http://contributionstozoology.nl/vol84/nr03/a04

Appendix

Appendix 1

next section

Species of Epimorpha for which the maximum body length measured in adults is 11 mm or less. In squared brackets: maximum length, number of measured specimens to the exclusion of those reported as juveniles, main references.

Cryptopidae: Cryptops angolensis Machado, 1951 [7 mm; 6 exx.; Machado, 1951], C. calinus Chamberlin, 1957 [11 mm; 2 exx.; Chamberlin, 1957], C. cubanus Matic, Negrea & Fundora Martinez, 1977 (11 mm; 1 ex.; Matic et al., 1977), C. daszaki Lewis, 2002 [7.5 mm; 6 exx.; Lewis, 2002], C. erkowiti Lewis, 1967 [8.5 mm; 1 ex.; Lewis, 1967], C. ethophor Chamberlin, 1920 [9 mm; ≥2 exx.; Chamberlin, 1920a], C. heathi Chamberlin, 1914 [10 mm; 1 ex.; Chamberlin, 1914], C. livius Chamberlin, 1951 [10 mm; >2 exx.; Chamberlin, 1951], C. manni Chamberlin, 1915 [9.5 mm; 1 ex.; Chamberlin, 1915], C. melanotypus Chamberlin, 1941 [8.5-9 mm; 1 ex.; Chamberlin, 1941], C. micrus Chamberlin, 1922 [10 mm; 1 ex.; Chamberlin, 1922], C. nanus Attems, 1938 [9 mm; 2 exx.; Lewis, 2011a][1], C. navigans Chamberlin, 1913 [11 mm; 2 exx.; Chamberlin, 1913], C. navis Chamberlin, 1930 [10 mm; 1 ex.; Chamberlin, 1930], C. omissus Ribaut, 1915 [9 mm; 1 ex.; Ribaut, 1915], C. sankuruensis Schubart, 1938 [9 mm; 1 ex.; Schubart, 1938], C. stabilis Chamberlin, 1944 [11 mm; 2 exx.; Chamberlin, 1944; Lewis, 2011b], C. venezuelae Chamberlin, 1939 [10 mm; 1 ex.; Chamberlin, 1939][2]

Scolopocryptopidae: Newportia kraepelini (Crabill, 1977) [11 mm; 1 ex.; Crabill, 1977; Shelley & Mercurio, 2008][3], Newportia pelaezi Chamberlin, 1942 [10 mm; 1 ex.; Chagas Junior & Shelley, 2003][4]

Mecistocephalidae: Nannarrup hoffmani Foddai, Bonato, Pereira & Minelli, 2003 [10.3 mm; 1 ex.; Foddai et al., 2003]

Geophilidae: Aphilodon modestus Silvestri, 1909 [9 mm; 1 ex.; Silvestri, 1909a], Apogeophilus claviger Silvestri, 1905 [10 mm; 1 ex.; Silvestri, 1905], Geophilus minimus Verhoeff, 1928 [9.5 mm; 2 exx.; Verhoeff, 1928; Foddai & Minelli, 1999], G. piae Minelli, 1983 [11 mm; 15 exx.; Minelli, 1983; Zapparoli, 2011][5], G. pinivagus Verhoeff, 1928 [10 mm; 1 ex.; Verhoeff, 1928], G. pusillus Meinert, 1870 [11 mm; 5 exx.; Meinert, 1870; Bonato & Minelli, 2014], G. richardi Brölemann, 1904 [10 mm; >20 exx.; Minelli, 1983; Zapparoli, 2011], Hyphydrophilus projectus Pereira, Minelli & Barbieri, 1994 [10 mm; >20 exx.; Pereira et al., 2000], Mecophilus neotropicus Silvestri, 1909 [8 mm; 1 ex.; Silvestri, 1909a], ‘Orinophilusplatensis Silvestri, 1898 [9 mm; ≥3 exx.; Silvestri, 1898][6], Poaphilus kewinus Chamberlin, 1912 [6.5 mm; 1 ex.; Chamberlin, 1912], Ribautia combinata Pereira, Uliana and Minelli, 2006 [9 mm; 1 ex.; Pereira et al., 2006][7], Schizotaenia prognatha Cook, 1896 [11 mm; 13 exx.; Crabill, 1964], Sogona vera (Chamberlin, 1943) [10 mm; 1 ex.; Chamberlin, 1943]

Schendylidae: Ballophilus pallidus Attems, 1938 [11 mm; ≥3 exx.; Attems, 1938], Caritohallex minyrrhopus Crabill, 1960 [10 mm; 2 exx.; Crabill, 1960], Dinogeophilus spp. [5.5 mm; 13 exx.; Silvestri, 1909a; Pereira, 1984; this paper], Leucolinum trinidadense Chamberlin, 1945 [9 mm; >2 exx.; Chamberlin, 1945], Marsikomerus arcanus (Crabill, 1961) [10 mm; 1 ex.; Hoffman & Pereira, 1991], Mesoschendyla franzi Dobroruka, 1959 [10 mm; 1 ex.; Dobroruka, 1959], M. javanica (Attems, 1907) [10 mm; 1 ex.; Attems, 1907][8], Morunguis morelus Chamberlin, 1943 [10 mm; 1 ex.; Chamberlin, 1943], Schendyla armata Brölemann, 1901 [11 mm; >20 exx.; Brolemann, 1930; Zapparoli, 2011], S. gracillima Verhoeff, 1934 [10 mm; ≥2 exx.; Verhoeff, 1943], S. verneri (Folkmanová & Dobroruka, 1960) [10 mm; ≥2 exx.; Folkmanová & Dobroruka, 1960], Schendylellus hodites Chamberlin, 1920 [7.5 mm; 1 ex.; Chamberlin, 1920b], Schendylops minutus (Pereira & Minelli, 1993) [11 mm; 1 ex.; Pereira & Minelli, 1993], S. oligopus Pereira, Minelli & Barbieri, 1995 [10 mm; >20 exx.; Pereira, 2013a], S. ramirezi Pereira, 2013 [7 mm; 11 exx.; Pereira, 2013a], Sogolabis scapheus Chamberlin, 1920 [8 mm; 1 ex.; Chamberlin, 1920b], Taeniolinum panamicum Chamberlin, 1940 [11 mm; 1 ex.; Chamberlin, 1940]

Appendix 2

Taxonomic account

Superfamily Himantarioidea Bollman, 1893

Family Schendylidae Cook, 1896

Genus Dinogeophilus Silvestri, 1909

Type-species. Dinogeophilus pauropus Silvestri, 1909 (by original designation)

Other species included. Dinogeophilus oligopodus Pereira, 1984

Diagnosis. Schendylids without denticles on the intermediate part of the labral margin, only a few denticles on the lateral parts; a single lamella on the mandible; second maxillary pretarsus slightly spatulate and with a few slender spines; forcipular coxosternite with incomplete chitin-lines; forcipules with denticles along the intermediate part of the tarsungulum; pore-fields elliptical, longitudinally elongate only on the anterior part of the trunk; a single coxal pore on each coxopleuron, corresponding to a homogeneous coxal organ; telopodite of the ultimate leg pair of six articles, swollen in both sexes, without claw but with a tiny apical spine; female gonopods uniarticulate, touching only at their bases; no anal pores.

Notes on the differences between species. The distinction of two species of Dinogeophilus was originally based on a series of differences found between the two male holotypes (Pereira, 1984). However, an adequate evaluation of the diagnostic value of most characters is hindered by the fact that a single specimen is known for D. pauropus and this is in bad conditions, lacking the head, and included in a microscopic slide (Pereira, 1984). Actually, some of the putative differences originally scored appear today of questionable diagnostic value, because they may be affected by intraspecific variation, as demonstrated in other geophilomorphs. This is the case of the position of the tips of the forcipules relative to the anterior margin of the head, the density of setae on the trunk (especially on the posterior part of the body), the number of sternal pores and the longitudinal extent of the pore-fields along the series of the trunk segments, the density of setae on the ventral side of the ultimate leg-bearing segment (especially on the posterior part of the metasternite and the mesal part of the coxopleura) at least in adult males, and the elongation of the metatergite of the ultimate leg-bearing segment. Although the intraspecific variability of D. pauropus remains unknown, candidate differential characters between the two species are the following: presence (D. pauropus) vs. absence (D. oligopodus) of tubercles on the surface of the most posterior leg-bearing segments, at least in adult males; 31 pairs of legs (D. pauropus) vs. 29 pairs of legs (D. oligopodus).

Geographical distribution. Specimens of Dinogeophilus have been collected so far in three localities, all in the lower and middle part of the basin of the Paraná and Uruguay rivers, between the Brazilian Highlands and the northern part of Pampas: near Salto, along the Uruguay river (Silvestri, 1909a; D. pauropus); near Puerto Iguazu, close to the Paraná river (Pereira, 1984; D. oligopodus); La Plata, close to the mouth of the rivers (new record; D. oligopodus).

Appendix 3
FIG2

Species of Geophilidae and Schendylidae for which DNA sequences were analysed, with collection codes of the specimens (localities and dates of collection given in Bonato et al., 2014: Table S1), GenBank accession codes of the sequences and total length of the concatenated sequences.