Orthomorpha beaumontii
| Notice: | This page is derived from the original publication listed below, whose author(s) should always be credited. Further contributors may edit and improve the content of this page and, consequently, need to be credited as well (see page history). Any assessment of factual correctness requires a careful review of the original article as well as of subsequent contributions.
If you are uncertain whether your planned contribution is correct or not, we suggest that you use the associated discussion page instead of editing the page directly. This page should be cited as follows (rationale):
Citation formats to copy and paste
BibTeX: @article{Likhitrakarn2011ZooKeys131, RIS/ Endnote: TY - JOUR Wikipedia/ Citizendium: <ref name="Likhitrakarn2011ZooKeys131">{{Citation See also the citation download page at the journal. |
Ordo: Diplopoda
Familia: Paradoxosomatidae
Genus: Orthomorpha
Name
Orthomorpha beaumontii (Le Guillou, 1841) – Wikispecies link – Pensoft Profile
- Polydesmus Beaumontii Le Guillou 1841[1]: 279 (D).
- Polydesmus Beaumontii – Gervais 1847[2]: 101 (D).
- Polydesmus (Parademus) Beaumontii – De Saussure 1859[3]: 326 (D); Humbert & De Saussure 1860[4]: 670 (D).
- Orthomorpha beaumonti – Bollman 1893[5]: 196 (M, R).
- Orthomorpha hydrobiologica spinala Attems 1932[6]: 39 (D), syn. n.
- Orthomorpha spinala – Jeekel 1968[7]: 45 (M); Hoffman 1973[8]: 362 (M); 1977[9]: 700 (M); Golovatch 1998[10]: 42 (D).
- Orthomorpha beaumontii – Jeekel 1963[11]: 269 (D); 1968[7]: 45 (M); Golovatch 1997b[12]: 79 (D); 1998[10]: 42 (D).
- Prionopeltis sp. (Beaumontii) (sic!) – Attems 1898[13]: 357 (D, R) [Non],
- Prionopeltis Beaumontii Attems (sic!) – Attems 1914[14]: 207 (M) [nec],
- Pratinus beaumontii (Att.) – Attems 1937[15]: 122 (M) [nec].
Material examined
Syntypes of Orthomorpha hydrobiologica spinala: 4 ♂, 1 ♀ (NHMW–3510), Indonesia, “Karimon Djawa Inseln” (= Pulau Karimunjawa Island, north of Java), V.1926, leg. Dammerman; 1 ♀ of Orthomorpha hydrobiologica spinala (NHMW–8001), Indonesia, Java, Tjibodas, no date, leg. W. S. S. van Benthem-Jutting, det. C. Attems.
Redescription
Length 33–38 mm (♂), 36–38 mm (♀), width of midbody pro- and metazona 2.7–2.8 and 4.0–4.2 mm (♂), 3.1–3.3 and 4.3–4.4 mm (♀), respectively. Coloration of alcohol material upon long-term preservation rather uniformly brown with contrasting pale yellowish paraterga, venter and legs light yellow-brown (Fig. 2).
Head usual, clypeolabral region sparsely setose, surface of vertex smooth; epicranial suture distinct. Antennae moderately long (Fig. 2A & B), reaching behind midway of body segment 3 (♂) or beyond segment 2 (♀). Head in width < collum < segments 3 and 4 < segment 2 < segments 5–16(17), gently and gradually tapering thereafter. Collum with three transverse rows of setae, 4+4 anterior, 2+2 intermediate, and 3+3 posterior setae; caudal corner of paraterga dentiform, pointed, directed caually (Fig. 2A, B & J). Tegument smooth and shining, prozona very finely shagreened, metaterga slightly rugulose; surface below paraterga smooth. Postcollum metaterga with two transverse rows of setae, these being always abraded and traceable as insertion points: 2+2 in anterior (pre-sulcus) row, 3+3 in posterior (postsulcus) one. Axial line barely visible both on pro- and metazona. Paraterga very strongly developed (Fig. 2A-G, J-L), especially so in ♂, subhorizontal, always lying below dorsum, thin in lateral view, like blunt blades, a little thicker only on pore-bearing segments, always clearly projecting well behind tergal margin. Calluses delimited both dorsally and ventrally, only on segment 2 without ventral sulcus, thin, especially so on poreless segments. Paraterga 2 broad, anterior edge rounded, lateral edge with two small, but evident incisions in anterior 1/3; posterior edge evidently concave (Fig. 2A & J). Paraterga 3 and 4 subequal, like subsequent paraterga, anterior edge slightly rounded, bordered and fused to callus, lateral edge with a small incision in anterior third. Paraterga 15–19 with tip of caudal corner evidently curved mesad. Ozopores evident, lateral, lying in an ovoid groove at about 1/3 of metazonital length. Transverse sulcus present on metaterga 5–18, shallow, not reaching bases of paraterga, finely beaded at bottom (Fig. 2A, C, F, J-L). Stricture between pro- and metazona narrow, shallow, beaded at bottom down to base of paraterga (Fig. 2D & E). Pleurosternal carinae complete crests only on segment 2 or segments 2 and 3, with a small, sharp, caudal tooth on segments 3–7(8) (♂) or 4–6 (♀), thereafter with a very small caudal denticle until segment 15 (♂, ♀). Epiproct (Fig. 2E-G & L) conical, flattened dorsoventrally, apical papillae well-developed, acute and directed ventrad; tip subtruncate; pre-apical papillae small, but visible. Hypoproct (Fig. 2G) subtriangular, setiferous knobs at caudal edge well-separated.
Sterna sparsely setose, without modifications, but with a pair of small, rounded, completely separated, setose cones between ♂ coxae 4 (Fig. 2H & I). No conspicuous ridge in front of gonopod aperture. Legs long and slender, slightly incrassate in ♂, midbody ones ca 1.2–1.3 (♂) or 0.8–0.9 times (♀) as long as body height, prefemora without modifications, tarsal brushes present until legs of segment 9.
Gonopods (Fig. 3) simple. Coxa long and slender, with several setae distodorsally. Prefemoral (= densely setose) portion more than 3 times shorter than femorite (measured until beginning of solenomere, including “postfemoral” part lying beyond lateral sulcus). Femorite slender, slightly curved and not enlarged distad, “postfemoral” part demarcated by an oblique lateral sulcus; tip of solenophore evidently trifid, middle denticle much smaller than both a terminal tooth and a subterminal lobule; solenomere about as long as solenophore, flagelliform.
Remarks
A complete historical review of the typification of Orthomorpha has long been provided by Jeekel (1963)[11]. Despite some confusion, Orthomorpha was properly typified by Pocock (1909)[16], with Orthomorpha beaumontii (Le Guillou, 1841) serving as the type-species.
Originally described as a subspecies of Orthomorpha hydrobiologica (see Attems 1932[6]), not as a variety as mistakenly quoted by Jeekel (1968)[7], spinala has since been treated as a full species (Jeekel 1968[7]). The above samples, especially the only available ♀ syntype, agree in almost every detail with the very accurate redescription of the Orthomorpha beaumontii holotype provided by Jeekel (1963)[11], making a restudy of the holotype superfluous. The few differences, such as size (4.4 vs 5.0 mm), coloration (brown vs blackish), the shape of the caudal tooth on pleurosternal carinae (sharp teeth vs triangular lappets), the presence of an anterolateral denticle on paraterga (very small vs virtually missing) etc., are deemed too minor, rather reflecting individual or population-level variation, to consider Orthomorpha spinala as being distinct from Orthomorpha beaumontii at the species level. Hence the new synonymy advanced. In addition, the type series of Orthomorpha spinala derives from an islet lying nearly halfway between Java and the beaumontii type locality, Borneo.
Jeekel (1963)[11], when trying to find the closest match among the known Orthomorpha species to the holotype of Orthomorpha beaumontii, emphasized its especially strong similarities to Orthomorpha weberi. Slight differences were only noted in the shape of the paraterga. It was this that allowed Jeekel to unequivocally conserve the concept of Orthomorpha. Zoogeographically, the strong morphological similarities between Orthomorpha beaumontii and Orthomorpha weberi make sense, because the latter species is endemic to Java, Indonesia.
With the above synonymization, the nomenclature of Orthomorpha becomes stabilized, confirming this genus’ present scope. The identity of its type-species, Orthomorpha beaumontii, has been refined, based on male characters as well.
Bollman (1893)[5], when proposing Orthomorpha as a replacement name for the preoccupied Paradesmus De Saussure, 1859, synonymized Orthomorpha beaumontii with Orthomorpha spectabilis (Karsch, 1881), the latter species from Java. Apparently because he provided no evidence whatsoever to substantiate his synonymization, it has since been neglected, spectabilis still remaining a dubious name (e.g. Attems 1937[15]; Jeekel 1968[7]).
(Attems (1898[13], 1914[14], 1937[15]) referred to beaumontii a sample from Java, Indonesia which he had received from the Berlin Museum, thus providing a second record of this species. However, because the gonopod tip of that sample shows a remarkably small subterminal lappet, while the paraterga and pleurosternal carinae slightly differ in shape from those of beaumontii, there can be no doubt of Attems’ misidentification. Hence our references to it as such in the catalogue section above.
Species with only a single terminal lobule on the gonopod tip
Taxon Treatment
- Likhitrakarn, N; Golovatch, S; Panha, S; 2011: Revision of the Southeast Asian millipede genus Orthomorpha Bollman, 1893, with the proposal of a new genus (Diplopoda, Polydesmida, Paradoxosomatidae) ZooKeys, 131: 1-161. doi
Images
|
![Figure 1. Orthomorpha beaumontii (Le Guillou, 1841), ♀ holotype. A, B segments 2–5, dorsal and lateral views, respectively C, D segments 10 and 11, dorsal and lateral views, respectively E segments 16–20, dorsal view F posterior part of body, ventral view (after Jeekel 1963[11]).](/wiki/File:ZooKeys-131-001-g001.jpg)
Other References
- ↑ Le Guillou E (1841) [Catalogue raisonné des insectes recueillis pendant le voyage de circumnavigation des corvettes l’Astrolabe et la Zelée]. L’Institut, journal universal des sciences et des sociétés savantes. Société philomathique de Paris 9 (599): 279-280.
- ↑ Gervais P (1847) Myriapodes. In: Walckenaer C (Ed). Histoire naturelle des Insectes. Aptères IV: 1-623.
- ↑ De Saussaure H (1859) Note sur la famille des Polydesmides, principalement au point de vue des espèces américaines. Linnaea Entomologica 13: 318-327.
- ↑ De Saussure H (1860) Essai d’une faune de Myriapodes du Mexique, avec la description de quelques espèces des autres parties de l’Amérique. Mémoires de la Société de Physique et d’Histoire Naturelle de Genève 15: 259-394.
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 Bollman C (1893): Notes upon the North American myriapods described by C. L. Koch. Bulletin of the United States National Museum 46: 150-152.
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 Attems C (1932) Neue Polydesmiden des Museums Buitenzorg. Treubia 14 (1): 29-41.
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 Jeekel C (1968) On the classification and geographical distribution of the family Paradoxosomatidae (Diplopoda, Polydesmida). Academisch Proefschrift, Rotterdam, 162 pp.
- ↑ Hoffman R (1973) Descriptions and allocation of new or poorly known genera and species of Paradoxosomatidae from south-eastern Asia (Diplopoda: Polydesmida). Journal of Natural History 7: 361-389. doi: 10.1080/00222937300770281
- ↑ Jeekel C (1964) A new species of Orthomorpha Bollman from Thailand observed in migration, with taxonomic notes on the genus (Diplopoda). Tijdschrift voor Entomologie 107: 355-364
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 Golovatch S (1998) On several new or poorly-known Oriental Paradoxosomatidae (Diplopoda Polydesmida), VI. Arthropoda Selecta 6(3–4): 35–46. [for 1997]
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 Jeekel C (1963) Paradoxosomatidae from Borneo (Diplopoda, Polydesmida). Tijdschrift voor Entomologie 106: 205-283.
- ↑ Golovatch S (1997b) Review of the Sunda weberi-group of Orthomorpha Bollman, 1893, with the description of two new species (Diplopoda, Polydesmida, Paradoxosomatidae). Miscellània Zoológica 20 (1): 73-80.
- ↑ 13.0 13.1 Attems C (1898) System der Polydesmiden. I. Theil. Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Wien, mathematisch-naturwissenschaftliche Classe 67: 221-482.
- ↑ 14.0 14.1 Attems C (1914) Die indo-australischen Myriopoden. Archiv für Naturgeschichte 80A: 1–398.
- ↑ 15.0 15.1 15.2 Attems C (1937) Myriapoda 3. Polydesmoidea I. Fam. Strongylosomidae. Das Tierreich 68: i-xxii, 1–300.
- ↑ Pocock R(1909), (in 1895–1910) Chilopoda and Diplopoda. Biologia Centrali-Americana. British Museum, Londo,. 217 pp.
