identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
03DE092DFFF5D70DFF13FB9C2FC9DB3F.text	03DE092DFFF5D70DFF13FB9C2FC9DB3F.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Scolopocryptopidae Pocock 1896	<div><p>Family Scolopocryptopidae Pocock, 1896</p><p>Diagnosis. Eyes absent. Labrum with a single median tooth (Fig. 23); maxillae 2 with pectinate pretarsus (Figs 10, 13, 16, 24) which consists of two well-distinguishable parts (darker basal and a semi-transparent apical ones, see fig. 2 in Schileyko 2018) but is not accompanied by any projections or accessory spine(s). Forcipular coxosternite with chitinised anterior margin (Figs 8, 21), rarely with short projections (Figs 9, 22) but never with prominent toothplates. Forcipular trochantero-prefemur with or without process. Sternites usually with variably expressed median longitudinal sulcus/suture, and rarely (in Kethopinae Shelley, 2002) with a transverse suture(s). Coxopleuron with or without process. 23 LBS; spiracles on macrosegments (7 th LBS with or without them), spiracles open, lacking flaps (Fig. 25, fig. 5A in Vahtera et al.) 2012b. Ultimate LBS considerably shorter than the penultimate one. Ultimate legs of four types (see below the subfamilial diagnoses). Tarsi of locomotory legs with two articles; legs with or without 1 or 2 tibial spurs and 1 tarsal spur. Ultimate leg prefemur with spinous processes. Edgecombe &amp; Bonato (2011) also wrote: “Gizzard with stiff, pineapple-shaped, projections; main zone of projections having a kink near their midlength”.</p><p>Number of subtaxa. 3 subfamilies, 4 genera.</p><p>Range. Caribbean Islands, Cocos Island, North, Central and South America; W Africa; China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Philippines, Sunda Archipelago, New Guinea, Fiji.</p><p>Remarks. Treated as a family in Edgecombe &amp; Bonato (2011: 403), Vahtera et al. (2012a: 4), Vahtera et al. (2012b: 232), Edgecombe et al. (2012: 768).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03DE092DFFF5D70DFF13FB9C2FC9DB3F	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Schileyko, Arkady A.;Vahtera, Varpu;Edgecombe, Gregory D.	Schileyko, Arkady A., Vahtera, Varpu, Edgecombe, Gregory D. (2020): An overview of the extant genera and subgenera of the order Scolopendromorpha (Chilopoda): a new identification key and updated diagnoses. Zootaxa 4825 (1): 1-64, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4825.1.1
03DE092DFFF5D703FF13F8902CBAD8C1.text	03DE092DFFF5D703FF13F8902CBAD8C1.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Scolopocryptopinae Pocock 1896	<div><p>Subfamily Scolopocryptopinae Pocock, 1896</p><p>Diagnosis. Antenna densely covered with collared sensilla apart from a few basal articles. Anterior margin of forcipular coxosternite sclerotized (Fig. 8), sometimes with small processes (Fig. 9), but never with well-developed tooth plates. Forcipular trochantero-prefemur with well-developed, simple (i.e. not furnished with additional tubercles) process (Figs 8, 9). LBS 7 usually with spiracles (or without them in the former Dinocryptops). Coxopleuron with conical process. Ultimate legs of “common” shape (sensu Schileyko 2009) i.e. the most similar to the locomotory ones (Fig. 7)—elongated, relatively slender and not transformed; ultimate prefemur with a single strong ventral and smaller dorsomedial spinous processes (the latter virtually absent in Scolopocryptops gracilis Wood, 1862 only), femur without those processes, pretarsus claw-shaped.</p><p>Number of subtaxa. 1 genus.</p><p>Sexual dimorphism. Unknown.</p><p>Range. Temperate and tropical regions of North America, Central and South America, Caribbean Islands; W Africa; China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Philippines, Sunda Archipelago, New Guinea, Fiji.</p><p>Remarks. Treated as a subfamily in Edgecombe &amp; Bonato (2011: 403), Vahtera et al. (2012a: 9), Vahtera et al. (2012b: 232), Edgecombe et al. (2012: 7687).</p><p>(!) Scolopocryptops Newport, 1844</p><p>Figs 7–10</p><p>Synonyms. Otocryptops Haase, 1887; Anethops Chamberlin, 1902; Dinocryptops Crabill, 1953 .</p><p>Type species. Scolopocryptops melanostoma Newport, 1845 (by subsequent designation by Lucas, 1849) .</p><p>Diagnosis. As for subfamily.</p><p>Number of species. 25 (new data), 22 (Edgecombe &amp; Bonato 2011: 403), 24 (Bonato et al. 2016).</p><p>Remarks. Treated as a genus in Edgecombe &amp; Bonato (2011: 403), Vahtera et al. (2012a: 7), Vahtera et al. (2012b: 232), Edgecombe et al. (2012: 768), Bonato et al. (2016). The most recent morphological accounts on Scolopocryptops are those of Edgecombe et al. (2012) and Chagas-Jr &amp; Bichuette (2015).</p><p>The closely related genus Dinocryptops Crabill, 1953 (present in Edgecombe &amp; Bonato 2011: 404) was formally placed in subjective synonymy under Scolopocryptops by Edgecombe et al. (2012: 777): “… morphology-based analyses suggest that recognition of Dinocryptops leaves Scolopocryptops as a paraphyletic grouping ... The phylogenetic analyses described below strongly support the paraphyly of Scolopocryptops with respect to Dinocryptops, using morphological, molecular or combined data and we have accordingly placed Dinocryptops in subjective synonymy of Scolopocryptops ”.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03DE092DFFF5D703FF13F8902CBAD8C1	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Schileyko, Arkady A.;Vahtera, Varpu;Edgecombe, Gregory D.	Schileyko, Arkady A., Vahtera, Varpu, Edgecombe, Gregory D. (2020): An overview of the extant genera and subgenera of the order Scolopendromorpha (Chilopoda): a new identification key and updated diagnoses. Zootaxa 4825 (1): 1-64, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4825.1.1
03DE092DFFFBD700FF13FAD12C39DEF4.text	03DE092DFFFBD700FF13FAD12C39DEF4.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Kethopinae , Shelley 2002	<div><p>Subfamily Kethopinae Shelley, 2002</p><p>Diagnosis. Antenna with normal trichoid sensilla, lacking collared sensilla. Anterior margin of forcipular trochantero-prefemur weakly sclerotized, without processes. LBS 7 without spiracles. Coxopleuron with a relatively short conical process. Ultimate legs cryptopiform sensu Crabill (1960) (in shape of a “pocket knife” sensu Schileyko 2009) i.e. shortened tibia and tarsus 1 with characteristic saw teeth, both these podomeres capable of flexure against each other and tarsus 2 forming a kind of clasping apparatus (Figs 11, 12). According to Lewis (2016b) at least ultimate tibia and tarsus 1 (in two of three species prefemur and femur as well) bear numerous, small and strongly curved spinous processes (Fig. 12) which are similar (and, apparently, homologous) to the typical cryptopid-type saw teeth of tibia and tarsus 1. Ultimate pretarsus claw-shaped.</p><p>Number of subtaxa. 2 genera.</p><p>Sexual dimorphism. Unknown.</p><p>Range. Central California, Northern Utah, Northern and Southern New Mexico (all USA) .</p><p>Remarks. Treated as a subfamily in Edgecombe &amp; Bonato (2011: 405), Vahtera et al. (2013: 595), Lewis (2016b: 26). Edgecombe &amp; Bonato (2011: 405) erroneously stated that the ultimate prefemur in Kethopinae is “unarmed” (i.e. bears no spinous processes), but saw teeth are borne on the prefemur of both Kethops utahensis (Chamberlin, 1909) and Thalkethops grallatrix Crabill, 1960 . The most recent account on this subfamily was given by Lewis (2016b: 26–28) who overviewed the scant available literature and wrote on page 28 that apart from Chamberlin’s (1912) “puzzling” drawing (Fig. 11), the only figures of the ultimate legs of Kethopinae are Crabill’s (1958, 1960) figures of the tibia and tarsus 1 and 2 (Fig. 12). In fact, the real structure (and spinulation) of both the ultimate prefemur and femur of Kethopinae is ambiguous as there are no drawings of the ultimate legs among scant and schematic figures of Shelley (2002: 78). In 2008 the third author studied one of Chamberlin’s specimens of K. utahensis, lacking the ultimate legs, from which novel anatomical details were depicted by SEM (Fig. 13, fig. 1AB in Edgecombe &amp; Koch 2009, figs 2B, 6C in Koch et al. 2010).</p><p>(!) Kethops Chamberlin, 1912</p><p>Figs 11, 13</p><p>Type species. Newportia utahensis Chamberlin, 1909 (by original designation).</p><p>Diagnosis. Sternites distinctly margined by lateral longitudinal sutures, with both median and transverse sutures.</p><p>Number of species. 2.</p><p>Remarks. Treated as a genus in Edgecombe &amp; Bonato (2011: 405), Bonato et al. (2016), Lewis (2016b: 26). Chamberlin (1912: 156) wrote that sternites are with “Usually two[!] or more weaker and more indefinite transverse sulci”; his corresponding fig. 5 also demonstrates not one but two transverse sutures, which is very unusual for scolopendromorphs.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03DE092DFFFBD700FF13FAD12C39DEF4	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Schileyko, Arkady A.;Vahtera, Varpu;Edgecombe, Gregory D.	Schileyko, Arkady A., Vahtera, Varpu, Edgecombe, Gregory D. (2020): An overview of the extant genera and subgenera of the order Scolopendromorpha (Chilopoda): a new identification key and updated diagnoses. Zootaxa 4825 (1): 1-64, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4825.1.1
03DE092DFFF8D700FF13FCDC2EC0D91D.text	03DE092DFFF8D700FF13FCDC2EC0D91D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Thalkethops Crabill 1960	<div><p>Thalkethops Crabill, 1960</p><p>Fig. 12</p><p>Type species. Thalkethops grallatrix Crabill, 1960 (by monotypy).</p><p>Diagnosis. Sternites without lateral margination as well as both median and transverse sutures but with “a shallow midlongitudinal and rather broad sulcus” according to the original description.</p><p>Number of species. 1.</p><p>Remarks. Treated as a genus in Edgecombe &amp; Bonato (2011: 405), Bonato et al. (2016), Lewis (2016b: 26). In his short and undetailed account on Kethopinae, Shelley (2002: 78) reasonably mentioned that “There is very little difference between Thalkethops and Kethops, and they may have to merged when more material of both is available”, noting (p. 79) 6 other (in addition to the holotype) available specimens from six “new localities” (all in New Mexico) and mentioning that “No observable variation is evident”.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03DE092DFFF8D700FF13FCDC2EC0D91D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Schileyko, Arkady A.;Vahtera, Varpu;Edgecombe, Gregory D.	Schileyko, Arkady A., Vahtera, Varpu, Edgecombe, Gregory D. (2020): An overview of the extant genera and subgenera of the order Scolopendromorpha (Chilopoda): a new identification key and updated diagnoses. Zootaxa 4825 (1): 1-64, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4825.1.1
03DE092DFFF8D706FF13FAB52DA9DD02.text	03DE092DFFF8D706FF13FAB52DA9DD02.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Newportiinae Pocock 1896	<div><p>Subfamily Newportiinae Pocock, 1896</p><p>Synonyms. Ectonocryptopinae Shelley &amp; Mercurio, 2005</p><p>Diagnosis. Antenna with normal trichoid sensilla, lacking collared sensilla (Fig. 23). Anterior margin of forcipular coxosternite without well-developed tooth plates, either smooth (Figs 17, 21) or with projections in Newportia (Tidops) Chamberlin, 1915 (Fig. 22). Forcipular trochantero-prefemur without well-developed process (with pointed minute tubercle in some species); tarsungula of variable length (Figs 21, 22). LBS 7 with (in most species) or without spiracles. Coxopleuron with conical process of variable length. Ultimate legs “lasso-shaped” sensu Schileyko (2009) (i.e. their tarsus 2 elongated and divided into numerous (4 to 40) variably-distinct secondary articles thus forming a kind of functional antenna, Figs 19, 20) or of “ectono-type” (see Schileyko 2009), i.e. somewhat shortened and swollen, subclavate, with inflated distal podomeres (Figs 14, 15). Ultimate prefemur with 3–6 large spinous processes, femur with a few (0–3) smaller spinous processes. Ultimate pretarsus absent in most taxa of both genus-group and species (except for 3 or 4 species of Newportia (Newportides) Chamberlin, 1912, figs 29, 47 in Chagas-Jr 2018).</p><p>Number of subtaxa. 1 genus, 5 subgenera (“Ca 60 species in two genera” in Edgecombe &amp; Bonato 2011: 405).</p><p>Sexual dimorphism. Unknown.</p><p>Range. Neotropics: from Central Mexico to Paraguay, including Cocos Island and Caribbean Islands.</p><p>Remarks. Treated as a subfamily in Edgecombe &amp; Bonato (2011: 405), Vahtera et al. (2012a: 9, 2013: 578). As a result of work of Vahtera et al. (2013) this subfamily became monotypic because the former genera Tidops, Ectonocryptops Crabill, 1977 and Ectonocryptoides should belong to a single genus Newportia Gervais, 1847 (see below).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03DE092DFFF8D706FF13FAB52DA9DD02	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Schileyko, Arkady A.;Vahtera, Varpu;Edgecombe, Gregory D.	Schileyko, Arkady A., Vahtera, Varpu, Edgecombe, Gregory D. (2020): An overview of the extant genera and subgenera of the order Scolopendromorpha (Chilopoda): a new identification key and updated diagnoses. Zootaxa 4825 (1): 1-64, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4825.1.1
03DE092DFFFED707FF13FE8F2992DD5E.text	03DE092DFFFED707FF13FE8F2992DD5E.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Newportia Gervais 1847	<div><p>(!) Newportia Gervais, 1847</p><p>Diagnosis. As for subfamily.</p><p>Number of species. 50 species, 57 taxa of species rank (new data).</p><p>Remarks. Newportia (in various senses) treated as a genus in Edgecombe &amp; Bonato (2011: 405), Vahtera et al. (2012a: 12, 2013: 579), Schileyko (2013: 40, 2014: 159, 2018: 61), Edgecombe et al. (2015: 65), Bonato et al. (2016), Martínez-Muñoz &amp; Tcherva (2017: 179) and Chagas-Jr (2018: 154). The most recent morphologic accounts on Newportia (in the old sense) are those of Schileyko (2013, 2014, 2018) and Chagas-Jr (2018).</p><p>There is a longstanding question on subgeneric division of this genus. Reviewing Newportia (in the long-held sense) solely on the basis of morphology, Schileyko and Minelli (1999: 267) regarded as problematic “any identification of natural subgroups within this large genus … although, based on the structure of the terminal [= ultimate] tarsus, we practically recognize two groups of species … Newportia [( Newportia)] and Scolopendrides ”. In 2012 Edgecombe et al. wrote (p. 779): “The molecular data resolve a clade within Newportia that was ambiguous based on morphology alone, one composed of Newportia divergens, Newportia ernsti, and Newportia stolli ... This group corresponds to Scolopendrides Saussure, 1858, formerly employed as a subgenus of Newportia … A possible apomorphy for this group is the traditional defining character of Scolopendrides, irregular boundaries between the tarsomeres of tarsus 2 of the ultimate leg”. Those data were supported by Vahtera et al. (2013: 591) who, based on combined analysis, stated that “One of the best-supported clades within Newportia is a grouping of species with irregular boundaries between tarsomeres on the ultimate leg” (p. 591) and that “A reclassification of Newportia … might also reconsider the utility of Scolopendrides because the group is unambiguously monophyletic” (p. 589). The nomenclatural validity of Scolopendrides Saussure is disputed in a forthcoming work by C. Martínez-Muñoz. Pending publication of that work, we desist from using this name but recognize the utility of taxonomically separating a group of species with the secondary articles of ultimate tarsus 2 definitely separated (Fig. 19) as the nominate subgenus and a group with irregularly divided ultimate tarsus 2 (Fig. 20).</p><p>Vahtera et al. (2013) also reclassified the genera Tidops, Ectonocryptops and Ectonocryptoides as subgenera of Newportia (see below). Taking into consideration the re-validation of the subgenus Newportides by Chagas-Jr (2018) (see below), the genus Newportia should at the moment include five subgenera.</p><p>There is also much confusion concerning the exact number of Newportia species. According to Edgecombe and Bonato (2011: 405) the genus includes “More than 50 species”, the most recent key of Schileyko (2013) contains 45 taxa of species rank, Vahtera et al. (2013: 589) mentioned “50+ species”, Edgecombe et al. (2015: 65) wrote about “some 60 nominal species or subspecies”, Bonato et al. (2016) gave 57 species, Martínez-Muñoz &amp; Tcherva (2017: 179) gave 66 species and Chagas-Jr (2018: 154) wrote about “more than 70 taxa at species rank”. It should be noted, however, that the first two papers considered Newportia in the “old” sense (i.e. before Vahtera et al. 2013), whereas in the rest of them this genus also accommodates Tidops, Ectonocryptops and Ectonocryptoides . Moreover, the authors mentioned above (except for Schileyko 2013 and Chagas-Jr 2018), included in Newportia all 17 “new species” that were poorly defined from Venezuela by González-Sponga (1997, 2000). The corresponding type material was re-investigated by Chagas-Jr who informed A.S. (e-mail of 2014) that only three of those “species” are valid. We regard two of them ( N. avilensis and N. prima, both of González-Sponga, 1997) as members of the species-group that has previously been referred to the former Scolopendrides (= Newportia ( Newportia)) and N. cerrocopeyensis González-Sponga, 2000, as a member of Newportia (Newportia) . In 2018 Chagas-Jr also confirmed validity of N. pilosa González-Sponga, 1997 thus only 4 of those doubtful 17 “species” should currently be valid (the corresponding paper of Chagas-Jr is in preparation; personal communication). Chagas-Jr (2018: 167) also questioned the taxonomic validity of N. sulana Chamberlin, 1922 (which has previously been synonymised with N. stolli (Pocock, 1896) by Schileyko and Minelli 1999). Only two species of Newportia were described (both by Ázara &amp; Ferreira 2014) since publication of Schileyko’s (2013) paper; Schileyko (2018: 64) lowered the taxonomic status of N. cubana Chamberlin, 1915 to N. longitarsis cubana .</p><p>Summing up, given the species of all subgenera, the total number of species in the genus Newportia should currently be 50 (or 51, see below). And namely: 25 species of Newportia (Newportia) (plus 6 subspecies of N. longitarsis (Newport, 1845) and 2 subspecies of N. weyrauchi Chamberlin, 1955), 15 of the group that has previously been referred to Scolopendrides (plus 2 subspecies of N. ernsti Pocock, 1891) + 3 of Newportides (or 4 if N. sulana is a valid species, which we doubt) + 4 of Tidops + 1 of Ectonocryptops + 2 of Ectonocryptoides .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03DE092DFFFED707FF13FE8F2992DD5E	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Schileyko, Arkady A.;Vahtera, Varpu;Edgecombe, Gregory D.	Schileyko, Arkady A., Vahtera, Varpu, Edgecombe, Gregory D. (2020): An overview of the extant genera and subgenera of the order Scolopendromorpha (Chilopoda): a new identification key and updated diagnoses. Zootaxa 4825 (1): 1-64, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4825.1.1
03DE092DFFFFD707FF13FE732982DF0F.text	03DE092DFFFFD707FF13FE732982DF0F.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Newportia (Newportia) (Newportia) Gervais 1847	<div><p>(!) Newportia (Newportia) Gervais, 1847 stat. nov.</p><p>Figs 19–21</p><p>Type species. Scolopocryptops longitarsis Newport, 1845 (by monotypy) .</p><p>Diagnosis. Anterior margin of forcipular coxosternite straight (or more or less bilobed), divided by small median diastema and lacking any kind of tooth plates (Fig. 21); tarsungula long, overlapping each other by at least 1/3 of their length when adducted. LBS 7 with spiracles. Ultimate leg with tarsus 2 divided into 4–40 variably-distinct secondary articles (Figs 19, 20), without claw-shaped pretarsus.</p><p>Number of species. 40 species plus 10 subspecies (new data).</p><p>Remarks. Treated as a subgenus in Ázara and Ferreira (2014: 267), Chagas-Jr (2018: 154).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03DE092DFFFFD707FF13FE732982DF0F	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Schileyko, Arkady A.;Vahtera, Varpu;Edgecombe, Gregory D.	Schileyko, Arkady A., Vahtera, Varpu, Edgecombe, Gregory D. (2020): An overview of the extant genera and subgenera of the order Scolopendromorpha (Chilopoda): a new identification key and updated diagnoses. Zootaxa 4825 (1): 1-64, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4825.1.1
03DE092DFFFFD707FF13FC80295FDAAD.text	03DE092DFFFFD707FF13FC80295FDAAD.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Newportia (Newportides) Chamberlin 1921	<div><p>Newportia (Newportides) Chamberlin, 1921</p><p>Type species. Newportia unguifer Chamberlin, 1921 (by original designation).</p><p>Diagnosis. Anterior margin of forcipular coxosternite bilobed, distinctly divided by deep median diastema, but lacking well-developed tooth plates (figs 4, 21, 32 in Chagas-Jr 2018); tarsungula overlapping each other by at least 1/3 of their length when adducted. LBS 7 with spiracles. Ultimate legs with tarsus 2 divided into some variably-distinct secondary articles and with well-developed claw-shaped pretarsus (figs 29, 47 in Chagas-Jr 2018).</p><p>Number of species: 3.</p><p>Remarks. Not present in Edgecombe &amp; Bonato (2011); Bonato et al. (2016) mentioned the name Newportides as a synonym of Newportia . The most recent morphological account has been made by Chagas-Jr (2018).</p><p>Schileyko &amp; Minelli (1999: 270) wrote: “As for Newportides, we put it straight in synonymy of Newportia . Newportides does not seem to be a natural group… The character which should identify this “subgenus” (clawshaped praetarsus of terminal [=ultimate] legs) is not stable. For instance, according to our observations (see also Chamberlin [1914a]), in some specimens of the usually clawless N. ernsti Pocock, 1891 and N. stolli (Pocock, 1896) a distinct praetarsus is present, in the shape of a small claw… Summing up, Newportides seems to be an unnatural, composite taxon”. However, based solely on morphology, Chagas-Jr (2018: 155) re-validated the subgenus Newportides . He considered the presence of a claw-shaped pretarsus of the ultimate leg to be taxonomically more important than the structure of the ultimate tarsus 2—therefore his Newportides would include species with both regular and irregular division of the ultimate tarsus 2. In our opinion, however, the latter character is much more important from the phylogenetic point of view (at least because it is obviously less adaptive). This idea is indirectly supported by the monophyly of the group of Newportia species with irregular division of ultimate tarsus 2, proposed by Vahtera et al. (2013). It should also be noted that the species of re-validated Newportides have not yet been included in any molecular analysis, so we consider the validity of this subgenus as questionable.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03DE092DFFFFD707FF13FC80295FDAAD	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Schileyko, Arkady A.;Vahtera, Varpu;Edgecombe, Gregory D.	Schileyko, Arkady A., Vahtera, Varpu, Edgecombe, Gregory D. (2020): An overview of the extant genera and subgenera of the order Scolopendromorpha (Chilopoda): a new identification key and updated diagnoses. Zootaxa 4825 (1): 1-64, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4825.1.1
03DE092DFFFFD704FF13F8E52C12DDEA.text	03DE092DFFFFD704FF13F8E52C12DDEA.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Newportia (Tidops) Chamberlin 1915	<div><p>(!) Newportia (Tidops) Chamberlin, 1915</p><p>Figs 22–25</p><p>Synonyms. Kartops Archey, 1923 .</p><p>Type species. Tidops simus Chamberlin,1915 (by monotypy).</p><p>Diagnosis. Anterior margin of forcipular coxosternite with two short, blunt projections (Fig. 20); forcipular tarsungula short, barely overlapping each other when adducted. LBS 7 without spiracles. Ultimate leg with tarsus 2 divided into 6–23 variably-distinct secondary articles, without claw-shaped pretarsus.</p><p>Number of species: 4.</p><p>Remarks. Treated as a genus in Edgecombe &amp; Bonato (2011: 406), Chagas-Jr (2011: 63), Vahtera et al. (2013: 579) and Bonato et al. (2016). As a result of a molecular analysis Vahtera et al. (2013: 589) suggested this genus to be a subgenus of Newportia . Schileyko (2002) was the first to doubt the validity of the enigmatic genus Kartops Archey, 1923 when he wrote that (p. 5): “The same investigation allows also to regard the genus Kartops … to be a junior synonym of Tidops “. Edgecombe &amp; Bonato (2011: 406) agreed with that, noting that Tidops possibly includes Kartops . The most recent morphological account on Tidops is that by Chagas-Jr (2011: 71), who synonymized Kartops with Tidops .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03DE092DFFFFD704FF13F8E52C12DDEA	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Schileyko, Arkady A.;Vahtera, Varpu;Edgecombe, Gregory D.	Schileyko, Arkady A., Vahtera, Varpu, Edgecombe, Gregory D. (2020): An overview of the extant genera and subgenera of the order Scolopendromorpha (Chilopoda): a new identification key and updated diagnoses. Zootaxa 4825 (1): 1-64, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4825.1.1
03DE092DFFFCD704FF13FBDE287FDBE9.text	03DE092DFFFCD704FF13FBDE287FDBE9.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Newportia (Ectonocryptops) Crabill 1977	<div><p>Newportia (Ectonocryptops) Crabill, 1977</p><p>Fig. 14</p><p>Type species. Ectonocryptops kraepelini Crabill, 1977 (by original designation).</p><p>Diagnosis. Anterior margin of forcipular coxosternite slightly convex, lacking projections; tarsungula long, overlapping each other by at least 1/3 of their length when adducted (fig. 2 in Shelley &amp; Mercurio 2008). Ultimate leg tibia practically twice the length of tarsus 1 (Fig. 14), with distomedial ventral uncinate process and glandular pores medially; tarsus 2 globose, small but well-developed (Fig. 14).</p><p>Number of species. 1.</p><p>Remarks. Treated as a genus in Edgecombe &amp; Bonato (2011: 405), suggested as a subgenus of Newportia by Vahtera et al. (2013: 589). The most recent account on this genus is Shelley &amp; Mercurio (2008: 66).</p><p>(!) Newportia (Ectonocryptoides) Shelley &amp; Mercurio, 2005</p><p>Figs 15–18</p><p>Type species. Ectonocryptoides quadrimeropus Shelley &amp; Mercurio, 2005 (by original designation).</p><p>Diagnosis. Anterior margin of forcipular coxosternite evidently convex, with “two low, additionally chitinised, lobes” (Schileyko 2009: 529); tarsungula long, overlapping each other by at least 1/3 of their length when adducted (Fig. 17). Ultimate leg tarsus 1 slightly longer than tibia (Fig. 15), the latter with glandular pores ventrally, without distomedial uncinate process (see also fig. 1b in Cupul-Magaña 2015); tarsus 2 absent or rudimentary.</p><p>Number of species. 2.</p><p>Remarks. Treated as a genus in Edgecombe &amp; Bonato (2011: 405), Vahtera et al. (2012a: 12, 13); suggested as a subgenus of Newportia by Vahtera et al. (2013: 589), treated as a subgenus in Cupul-Magaña (2015). The most recent morphological accounts on Ectonocryptoides are those of Schileyko (2009) and Koch et al. (2010).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03DE092DFFFCD704FF13FBDE287FDBE9	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Schileyko, Arkady A.;Vahtera, Varpu;Edgecombe, Gregory D.	Schileyko, Arkady A., Vahtera, Varpu, Edgecombe, Gregory D. (2020): An overview of the extant genera and subgenera of the order Scolopendromorpha (Chilopoda): a new identification key and updated diagnoses. Zootaxa 4825 (1): 1-64, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4825.1.1
03DE092DFFE2D71AFF13FF762C93DB3B.text	03DE092DFFE2D71AFF13FF762C93DB3B.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cryptopidae Kohlrausch 1881	<div><p>Family Cryptopidae Kohlrausch, 1881</p><p>Synonyms. Cryptopsidae in Machado (1953: 83)</p><p>Diagnosis. Eyes absent. Labrum with a single median tooth (only in a few species of Cryptops (Cryptops) with two additional lateral teeth; Fig. 29). Slender pretarsus of maxillae 2 not pectinate, more or less curved (Figs 30, 31), pointed (figs 3C, 6C in Ázara &amp; Ferreira 2013) or lobe-shaped (fig. 69 in Verhoeff 1934). Maxillary pretarsus in most species is accompanied by a ventral projection (“flange” sensu Edgecombe &amp; Bonato 2011, Figs 30, 31) but never by accessory spine(s). Anterior margin of forcipular coxosternite in most species bilobed, with some long enlarged marginal setae (Fig. 26); rarely is this margin additionally chitinised or with short rounded projections (in Cryptops (Paracryptops), Fig. 27), but never with tooth-plates. Forcipular trochantero-prefemur never with process. Sternites never with paramedian sutures, but usually with “cruciform” sutures (Fig. 32), i.e. with well-developed transverse suture (sometimes with skeletal transverse ridge/thickening at its place) and with a single median longitudinal suture (more rarely sulcus) developed to varying degrees. 21 LBS; spiracles on macrosegments except for LBS 7; spiracles open, lacking flaps (fig. 4 A in Vahtera et al. 2012b). Ultimate LBS considerably shorter than the penultimate one; coxopleuron without a process. Tarsal articles of locomotory legs (Fig. 26) in most species fused in a solid tarsus (with or without visible traces of an articulation between them); legs lack both tibial and tarsal spurs. Relatively short ultimate legs (Fig. 28) of “pocket knife” shape (sensu Schileyko 2009) forming a kind of clasping apparatus, their femur (not always), tibia and tarsus 1 in overwhelming majority of species with characteristic saw teeth, pretarsus not enlarged. Prefemur of the ultimate legs without processes (spinous ones or saw teeth), sometimes with short enlarged setae (Fig. 28). Edgecombe &amp; Bonato (2011: 393) also wrote: “Median cluster of sensilla coeloconica on clypeal part of epipharynx rhomboid, with lids covering the distal edge of the sensilla… Gizzard with stiff anteriorly-directed projections; projections without a distinct kink near their midlength”.</p><p>Number of subtaxa. 1 genus, 4 subgenera.</p><p>Sexual dimorphism. Unknown.</p><p>Range. All tropical, subtropical and warm temperate regions.</p><p>Remarks. Treated as a family in Edgecombe &amp; Bonato (2011: 393), Vahtera et al. (2012a: 6), Edgecombe et al. (2012: 770), Lewis (2013: 1), Lewis (2016a: 575), Stojanović, Mitić &amp; Makarov (2019: 21).</p><p>Edgecombe and Bonato (2011: 393) divided this family into two closely related genera— Cryptops and Paracryptops, and Vahtera et al. (2012a: 13) suggested (without formalizing; see below) the latter to be a synonym of the former; so at the moment this family is monotypic. According to both Edgecombe &amp; Bonato (2011: 393) and Lewis (2016a: 575) the genus Cryptops comprises four subgenera: Cryptops (Cryptops), Trigonocryptops Verhoeff, 1906, Haplocryptops Verhoeff, 1934 and Chromatanops Verhoeff, 1906, but we regard the latter to be a synonym of Cryptops (Cryptops) (see below).</p><p>There is certain confusion concerning structure of the pretarsus of maxillae 2 in this family (i.e. in genus Cryptops). Attems (1930: 7) only wrote that this structure is “schlank” (slim/slender) and gave a drawing (fig. 285) of a slightly[!] curved and apically pointed claw accompanied by a well-developed and apically rounded ventral projection. In 1934 Verhoeff, describing the new subgenus C. ( Haplocryptops), noted two types of maxillary pretarsus in Cryptops (see below). Recent authors (Edgecombe &amp; Koch 2008: 883, Koch et al. 2010: 77, Edgecombe &amp; Bonato 2011: 393) describe this pretarsus only as a “hook-like and flanged”, confirming these terms by corresponding drawings or SEMs (Figs 30, 31). We note, however, that this character is not stable in Cryptops, not even being subgenus-specific as five adults of C. (C.) caucasius Verhoef, 1934 (Rc 6430, 8004) and two adults of C. (C.) anomalans Newport, 1844 (Rc 7450) show this pretarsus to be slightly curved (i.e. not hooked), apically pointed and lacking any ventral projection (see also Remarks to C. ( Paracryptops) below). Thus there should be at least four types of this pretarsus in Cryptopidae: 1. slightly curved, apically pointed, without ventral projection, 2. slightly curved, apically pointed, with ventral projection, 3. slightly curved, lobe-shaped, with ventral projection, 4. hooklike, with ventral projection.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03DE092DFFE2D71AFF13FF762C93DB3B	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Schileyko, Arkady A.;Vahtera, Varpu;Edgecombe, Gregory D.	Schileyko, Arkady A., Vahtera, Varpu, Edgecombe, Gregory D. (2020): An overview of the extant genera and subgenera of the order Scolopendromorpha (Chilopoda): a new identification key and updated diagnoses. Zootaxa 4825 (1): 1-64, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4825.1.1
03DE092DFFE2D71BFF13F8942C5DDF0C.text	03DE092DFFE2D71BFF13F8942C5DDF0C.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cryptops (Cryptops) (Cryptops) Leach 1814	<div><p>(!) Cryptops (Cryptops) Leach, 1814</p><p>Figs 29, 30</p><p>Synonyms. C. ( Trichocryptops) Verhorff, 1937</p><p>Type species. Scolopendra hortensis Donovan, 1810 (by monotypy).</p><p>Diagnosis. Clypeus in overwhelming majority of species without setose plate(s) delimited by sutures (Fig. 29). Pretarsus of maxillae 2 more or less curved (sometimes hooked, Fig. 30), apically either pointed (fig. 285 in Attems 1930) or lobe-shaped (fig. 69 in Verhoeff 1934). Pretarsus in most species is accompanied by a ventral projection (Fig. 30). Dorsal brush of maxilla 2 longer (sometimes slightly shorter) than corresponding pretarsus. Anterior margin of forcipular coxosternite virtually straight or bilobed (Fig. 29), in most species with long enlarged marginal setae; tarsungula long, overlapping each other by at least 1/3 of their length when adducted (Fig. 29). Sternites in most species (and in most specimens within these species) with “cruciform” sutures (see above) of which a median longitudinal one may be not well-developed (rarely virtually absent) plus an additional posterior transverse suture (but never with trigonal sutures; see also Diagnosis of C. (Trigonocryptops) below). Anterior corners of the endosternites without the lateral projections in the majority of species.</p><p>Number of species. “More than 170 species in four subgenera” (Edgecombe &amp; Bonato 2011: 393), 181 (Bonato et al. 2016).</p><p>Remarks. Present as genus and nominate subgenus in Edgecombe &amp; Bonato (2011: 393), Lewis (2011: 12), Murienne et al. (2011: 62), Voigtländer &amp; Reip (2013: 220), Schileyko (2014: 183), Schileyko &amp; Stoev (2016: 262), Lewis (2016a: 575), Bonato et al. (2016). Lewis (2016a) synonymised Cryptops (Trichocryptops) to Cryptops (Cryptops) .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03DE092DFFE2D71BFF13F8942C5DDF0C	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Schileyko, Arkady A.;Vahtera, Varpu;Edgecombe, Gregory D.	Schileyko, Arkady A., Vahtera, Varpu, Edgecombe, Gregory D. (2020): An overview of the extant genera and subgenera of the order Scolopendromorpha (Chilopoda): a new identification key and updated diagnoses. Zootaxa 4825 (1): 1-64, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4825.1.1
03DE092DFFE3D719FF13FC85287ADD7A.text	03DE092DFFE3D719FF13FC85287ADD7A.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cryptops (Chromatanops) Verhoeff 1906	<div><p>Cryptops (Chromatanops) Verhoeff, 1906</p><p>Type species. Cryptops bivittatus Pocock, 1893 (by monotypy).</p><p>Number of species: 1.</p><p>Remarks. Treated as a subgenus in Edgecombe &amp; Bonato (2011: 393), Lewis (2016a: 575). Both Chagas-Jr et al. (2014: 142) and Bonato et al. (2016) regarded C. bivittatus (the only species of Chromatanops) as a member of Cryptops, but at the same time Bonato et al. (2016) included Chromatanops as a subgenus of Cryptops .</p><p>Pocock (1893: 462) described Cryptops bivittatus from “ St. Vincent ” by the only[?] specimen with “Length about 15.5 mm”. The original description is rather short and unillustrated. No information is available on clypeal setose plates, either the pretarsus or dorsal brush of maxillae 2, or length of the tarsungula. According to the original description (p. 462) the anterior margin of the forcipular coxosternite is “straight and furnished with 6 bristles” and sternites are “furnished with the ordinary cross-shaped sulci [=sutures]”. In 1903 Kraepelin (who listed two “Exemplare aus Costa Rica und Columbien” at hand) confirmed Pocock’s description in virtually all details; in particular he wrote (p. 50) that sternites are with “starken Längs- and schwachen Querfurchen”. In 1906 Verhoeff established the subgenus Chromatanops (for C. bivittatus only) herewith he surprisingly noted an absence [!] of sternal transverse thickening between coxae of legs (“Hauptsternite ohne innere Verdickungsleisten”; pp 289–290), in contrast to Pocock’s and Kraepelin’s data on presence of the sternal transverse suture (see above). He also noted an absence of sternal trigonal sutures (“Keine Sternitdreiecke”) and not definitely bordered endosternites (“Endosternite nicht sharf abgegrenzt”) (p. 290). In his short (and unillustrated) diagnosis Verhoeff gave no important morphological details that may be used for separation of his “new subgenus”. However he copied Pocock’s and Kraepelin’s data on presence of tergal accumulations of dark pigment (“Körper mit schwartzen, in Längsstreifen angeordneten Pigmentmassen”; p. 390), a character he apparently regarded as diagnostic for his new taxon (this idea is confirmed by the name “ Chromatanops ”). Other data on this mysterious Cryptops are scant, contained in Chamberlin (1922: 3), Attems (1930: 243), Bücherl (1942: 324), Kraus (1957: 387) and Chagas-Jr et al. (2014: 142). Of these only Attems gave a short morphological account, albeit reproducing data of three previous authors. Original data on the geographic distribution of “ Cryptops (Chromatanops) bivittatus ” (6 new localities from Peru) were presented by Kraus (1957), whereas the other three authors just copied the previous faunistic data.</p><p>As for Verhoeff’s (1906) “diagnostic” dark coloration of his “ Chromatanops ”, we can state that it is of minor taxonomic value in Cryptops; Schileyko (2007: 88) wrote about pigmentation in Vietnamese material (150 specimens) of C. doriae Pocock, 1891: “… about 40 % of specimens showing inner accumulations of dark pigment … This dark pattern is much better visible dorsally, sometimes also laterally and, much more rarely, ventrally”. Schileyko’s data were confirmed by Lewis (2009) who analysed in detail a variability of some morphological characters, traditionally used in taxonomy of Cryptops (Cryptops) (p. 506): “To summarise, some species always exhibit the [dark] pigmentation; some may or may not exhibit it and others … are not pigmented”. Thus, this character may vary in Cryptops even intraspecifically, so it cannot be used for separation of any subtaxa in this genus.</p><p>Summing up, as there are no reliable diagnostic characters to confirm Chromatanops as a subgenus, so Cryptops (Chromatanops) Verhoeff, 1906 is considered a junior synonym of Cryptops Leach, 1814 syn. nov. and Cryptops (Chromatanops) bivittatus Pocock, 1893 should be Cryptops (Cryptops) bivittatus Pocock, 1893 stat. nov.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03DE092DFFE3D719FF13FC85287ADD7A	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Schileyko, Arkady A.;Vahtera, Varpu;Edgecombe, Gregory D.	Schileyko, Arkady A., Vahtera, Varpu, Edgecombe, Gregory D. (2020): An overview of the extant genera and subgenera of the order Scolopendromorpha (Chilopoda): a new identification key and updated diagnoses. Zootaxa 4825 (1): 1-64, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4825.1.1
03DE092DFFE1D719FF13FE572F39D9C4.text	03DE092DFFE1D719FF13FE572F39D9C4.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cryptops (Trigonocryptops) Verhoeff 1906	<div><p>(!) Cryptops (Trigonocryptops) Verhoeff, 1906</p><p>Figs 26, 28, 32</p><p>Synonyms. Paratrigonocryptops Demange, 1963</p><p>Type species. Cryptops gigas Kraepelin, 1903 (by subsequent designation of Attems, 1930).</p><p>Diagnosis. Clypeus with setose plate(s) delimited by sutures (Fig. 26, fig. 21 in Schileyko et al. 2018). Pretarsus of maxillae 2 apically pointed, with a ventral projection (as in C. (T.) hephaestus Ázara &amp; Ferreira, 2013 see their fig. 6C) or without it (as in adult (Rc 7502) of C. (T.) sarasini furcatus (Ribaut, 1923)). Dorsal brush of maxilla 2 as long as or slightly longer than the corresponding pretarsus. Anterior margin of forcipular coxosternite bilobed, in most species with long enlarged marginal setae (Fig. 26); tarsungula long, overlapping each other by at least 1/3 of their length when adducted. Sternites (Fig. 32) with well-developed transverse thickening between coxae of legs; at least some anterior sternites with endosternites bordered by trigonal sutures, the configurations of these sutures may vary (see Schileyko et al. 2018). Anterior corners of the endosternite of some anterior sternites with lateral projections (Fig. 32).</p><p>Number of species. 29 (Schileyko et al. 2018).</p><p>Remarks. Treated as a subgenus in Edgecombe &amp; Bonato (2011: 393), Murienne et al. (2011: 62), Ázara &amp; Ferreira (2013: 432), Voigtländer &amp; Reip (2013: 220), Bonato et al. 2016, Lewis (2016a: 575), Schileyko &amp; Stoev (2016: 266), Schileyko et al. (2018: 567).</p><p>Cryptops (Paratrigonocryptops) was synonymised to C. (Trigonocryptops) by Lewis (2005). Schileyko &amp; Stoev (2016) considered the similarity between Cryptops (Trigonocryptops) and the nominate subgenus; they reconsidered the recent concept of the former, suggesting that (p. 267) “only species having anterior sternites with complete trigonal sutures and clypeus with setose plate(s) should be assigned to Trigonocryptops ”. Thus “ Cryptops (Trigonocryptops) iporangensis ” Ázara &amp; Ferreira, 2013 should be Cryptops (C.) iporangensis as it has no sternal trigonal sutures. As for Cryptops (Trigonocryptops) similis described by Machado (1953) for four specimens from Southern Spain, it has sternal trigonal sutures that are typical for this subgenus, but there is no information on presence of clypeal setose plate(s) (see pp 85–87) and the corresponding figure III(2) is inadequate. Voigtländer &amp; Reip (2013: 220) mentioned another specimen of Cryptops (T.) similis from Southern Spain but gave no information on the two diagnostic characters of this subgenus (see above). Thus inclusion of Cryptops (T.) similis in Trigonocryptops should be questionable at the moment.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03DE092DFFE1D719FF13FE572F39D9C4	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Schileyko, Arkady A.;Vahtera, Varpu;Edgecombe, Gregory D.	Schileyko, Arkady A., Vahtera, Varpu, Edgecombe, Gregory D. (2020): An overview of the extant genera and subgenera of the order Scolopendromorpha (Chilopoda): a new identification key and updated diagnoses. Zootaxa 4825 (1): 1-64, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4825.1.1
03DE092DFFE1D71FFF13F9CD2CFDDB58.text	03DE092DFFE1D71FFF13F9CD2CFDDB58.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cryptops (Haplocryptops) Verhoeff 1934	<div><p>Cryptops (Haplocryptops) Verhoeff, 1934</p><p>Type species. Cryptops (Haplocryptops) acapulcensis Verhoeff, 1934 (by monotypy).</p><p>Diagnosis. Thin pretarsus of maxillae 2 slightly curved and pointed apically, without ventral projection (figs 64, 65 in Verhoeff 1934); dorsal brush of maxilla 2 composed of very short setae being considerably shorter than pretarsus. Anterior margin of forcipular coxosternite virtually straight (fig. 66 in Verhoeff 1934); tarsungula long, overlapping each other by at least 1/3 of their length when adducted.</p><p>Number of species. 1.</p><p>Remarks. Treated as a subgenus in Edgecombe &amp; Bonato (2011: 393), Lewis (2016a: 575), Bonato et al. (2016). No information is available on clypeal setose plates, the configuration of sternal sutures/sulci, or the presence and shape of endosternites.</p><p>At the moment the subgenus Haplocryptops is known only from the holotype of Cryptops (H.) acapulcensis and an incomplete (without ultimate legs) specimen from Jalisco (also Mexico) assigned to C. (H.) cf. acalpuncensis by Cupul-Magaña (2012). The subgeneric diagnosis provided by Edgecombe &amp; Bonato’s (2011) attempted to distill characters regarded as diagnosis of Haplocryptops by Verhoeff (1934). It states (p. 393): “Second maxillary claw [=pretarsus] simple, pointed rather than with a ventral flange; dorsal brush on second maxillae composed of very short setae. Forcipular coxosternite lacking median suture”. The last sentence is not diagnostic because a bulk of species of the nominate subgenus do not exhibit this suture at all (Fig. 29). According to Verhoeff’s (1934) figure 65 the pretarsus of maxilla 2 in C. (H.) acapulcensis is actually pointed apically (not rounded as in some species of nominotypical subgenus) and has no rounded ventral process (“ventral flange”). This process (fig. 69 in Verhoeff 1934 and fig. 285 in Attems 1930) should be present in Palearctic species studied by Verhoeff (1934); who wrote (p. 40) “Diese Putzapparat fand ich bei allen unsern paläarctischen Arten in derselben Weise ausgebildet, nich dagegen bei der in Betracht kommenden mexicanischen Art …”. However as this structure is not characteristic for all species of Cryptops (Cryptops) and since it is also present in some species of Trigonocryptops (see above) it should not be used for separation of Haplocryptops .</p><p>Also, according to the Verhoeff ‘s (1934) figures 64 and 65, the maxillary 2 dorsal brush of Haplocryptops seems to consist of remarkably short setae, the apical setae being much shorter than the pretarsus. However, as the length of the dorsal brush varies considerably among species of Cryptops (see Verhoeff’s and Attems’ drawings mentioned above) this condition cannot guarantee the definite separation of Haplocryptops . Cupul-Magaña (2012: 4) gave no data on structures/details of maxillae 2 in his specimen of C. (H.) acapulcensis . Summing up, the differences between Haplocryptops and the nominate subspecies seem to be minor and not significant, leaving us to doubt the validity of the former. However, we prefer to keep this subgenus until representative material from the type locality is studied.</p><p>(!) Cryptops (Paracryptops) Pocock, 1891 stat. nov.</p><p>Figs 27, 31</p><p>Type species. Paracryptops weberi Pocock, 1891 (by monotypy).</p><p>Diagnosis. Clypeus without setose plates. Pretarsus of maxillae 2 slender, from slightly to strongly hooked apically, with (Fig. 31) or without ventral projection. Very dense dorsal brush (Fig. 31) visibly longer than (or as long as) pretarsus, consisting of tiny and virtually transparent setae. Anterior margin of forcipular coxosternite with short, blunt, apically slightly rounded lobes which have no chitinised margin; a few long setae placed at bases of these projections; sharply pointed tarsungula very short (Fig. 27), barely (or even not) overlapping each other when adducted. Sternites with well-developed transverse thickening between coxae of legs and with very wide and shallow incomplete longitudinal depression (not sulcus) at the place of median suture. Short endosternite well bordered by transverse suture, but in most LBS not visible, being covered by the following sternite.</p><p>Number of species. 5 (Edgecombe &amp; Bonato 2011: 395, Bonato et al. 2016).</p><p>Remarks. The most recent morphological accounts on Paracryptops were given by Chagas-Jr and Shelley (2004: 3) and Schileyko (2007: 91). Treated as a genus in Edgecombe &amp; Bonato (2011: 395). Based on both molecular and morphological results Vahtera et al. (2012a: 13) wrote that Paracryptops “nested within Cryptops ” without formalizing the new taxonomic stratus of the latter, although in their subsequent work (2012b) they treated Paracryptops as a genus again. Taking into consideration the unequivocal results obtained by Vahtera et al. (2012a), we propose this taxon to be a subgenus of Cryptops, i.e. C. ( Paracryptops) Pocock, 1891 stat. nov.</p><p>Seven adult specimens from Vietnam (Rc 6535, 6658, 7130, 7383, 7433) of C. (P.) indicus Silvestri, 1924 restudied by light microscopy show the pretarsus of maxillae 2 being slightly curved and lacking ventral projection(s) and sternal median suture being absent (an uncommon conditionin Cryptopidae), sometimes replaced by poorlydeveloped median sulcus.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03DE092DFFE1D71FFF13F9CD2CFDDB58	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Schileyko, Arkady A.;Vahtera, Varpu;Edgecombe, Gregory D.	Schileyko, Arkady A., Vahtera, Varpu, Edgecombe, Gregory D. (2020): An overview of the extant genera and subgenera of the order Scolopendromorpha (Chilopoda): a new identification key and updated diagnoses. Zootaxa 4825 (1): 1-64, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4825.1.1
03DE092DFFE4D71CFF13FF762CA0DA6F.text	03DE092DFFE4D71CFF13FF762CA0DA6F.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Mimopidae Lewis 2006	<div><p>Family Mimopidae Lewis, 2006</p><p>Diagnosis. Single ocellus on each side of cephalic plate (Fig. 1, fig. 1 of Lewis 2006). Pretarsus of maxillae 2 “pointed and without accessory spurs [= spines]. Not hooked as in Cryptops ” (Lewis 2006: 1232). Anterior margin of forcipular coxosternite with two small/short, rounded projections instead of tooth-plates (Fig. 2, fig. 15 in Lewis 2006). Forcipular trochantero-prefemur with rudimentary simple process, rounded apically. Sternites with complete paramedian sutures (“sulci” in Lewis 2006: 1236) (Fig. 3). 21 LBS. Spiracles on macrosegments except for LBS 7, the spiracles of LBS 3 oval (see also fig. 13 in Lewis 2006; fig. 10 in Jiang et al. 2020), others more rounded (see Remarks below); spiracular atrium not deep, filled with humps. Ultimate LBS considerably shorter than the penultimate one, covered by numerous small spines on tergite, coxopleuron and margins of sternite (Figs 4, 5). Coxopleuron with long, slender process covered by minor spines, but without well-developed apical one(s) (Figs 4, 5). Tarsus of legs bipartite (Fig. 3); legs 1–18 with two tibial spurs, leg 19 with one, leg 20 with none; legs 1–20 with two tarsal spurs. Ultimate legs of “common” shape (Fig. 6), prefemur lacking corner spine, both prefemur and femur covered by numerous small spines, pretarsus not enlarged. Data on internal structure of gizzard absent.</p><p>Number of subtaxa. 1 genus.</p><p>Sexual dimorphism. Males have a pair of conical gonopods that bear several long setae (Jiang et al. 2020).</p><p>Range. North China (Shaanxi, Henan) .</p><p>Remarks. Treated as a family in Edgecombe &amp; Bonato (2011: 395), Vahtera et al. (2012a: 6), Jiang et al. (2020). The first available molecular data for M. orientalis, recently rediscovered after more than a century, validate its classification as a distinct family, as it is placed as sister group to a clade composed of the three blind families ( Plutoniumidae, Scolopocrytopidae and Cryptopidae) (Jiang et al. 2020).</p><p>Lewis (2006: 1235) wrote about Mimops orientalis Kraepelin, 1903: “The spiracle cup filled with humps (Figure 13), resembling those of the Otostigminae . The spiracles require further investigation”; the re-studied holotype showed otostigmine-like spiracles without any flap. Lewis described the ultimate legs (p. 1235) as “Pretarsal accessory spurs [= spines] are absent” but his figure 10 definitely shows at least one accessory spine normally developed; observation by the second author confirmed absence of these spines in the holotype, as is likewise the case in newly collected specimens (Jiang et al. 2020). A single ocellus is visible in the holotype (Fig. 1) and can likewise be detected in the same position within a depigmented area in a fig. 23 of Jiang et al. (2020) who mistakenly wrote (p. 79) “A pale area instead of lateral ocelli at the base of each antenna”.</p><p>No adequate literature data are available on the structure of the labrum and the condition of the holotype does not permit seeing the details of either the clypeus or the pretarsus of maxillae 2 without dissecting the specimen.</p><p>(!) Mimops Kraepelin, 1903</p><p>Figs 1–6</p><p>Type species. Mimops orientalis Kraepelin, 1903 (by monotypy).</p><p>Diagnosis. As for family.</p><p>Number of species. 1.</p><p>Remarks. Treated as a genus in Edgecombe &amp; Bonato (2011: 395). The most recent morphological account on Mimops is Jiang et al. (2020).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03DE092DFFE4D71CFF13FF762CA0DA6F	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Schileyko, Arkady A.;Vahtera, Varpu;Edgecombe, Gregory D.	Schileyko, Arkady A., Vahtera, Varpu, Edgecombe, Gregory D. (2020): An overview of the extant genera and subgenera of the order Scolopendromorpha (Chilopoda): a new identification key and updated diagnoses. Zootaxa 4825 (1): 1-64, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4825.1.1
03DE092DFFE4D71DFF13F9202E0BDF0A.text	03DE092DFFE4D71DFF13F9202E0BDF0A.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Plutoniumidae Bollman 1893	<div><p>Family Plutoniumidae Bollman, 1893</p><p>Synonyms. Theatopidae Verhoeff, 1906; Theatopinae Verhoeff, 1906; Theatopsidae Verhoeff, 1907.</p><p>Diagnosis. Eyes absent, light/depigmented spots at their place (Fig. 34). Labrum with a single median tooth. Slender pretarsus of maxillae 2 (Fig. 35) not pectinate, consisting of two well-distinguishable parts (darker basal and a semi-transparent apical ones), curved and pointed apically. Pretarsus (at least in Theatops) is accompanied by welldeveloped ventral projection (Fig. 35) which is of the same shape as pretarsus but visibly thinner and shorter (sometimes nearly as long as it; see below); it is never accompanied by accessory spine(s). Anterior margin of forcipular coxosternite with well-developed tooth-plates (Fig. 36), forcipular trochantero-prefemur with simple processes of various length. Sternites with a single longitudinal median suture, developed to varying degrees (hardly visible in some Theatops). 21 LBS; spiracles (figs 1AB in Vahtera et al. 2012b) on LBS 2–20 or on macrosegments only (if so LBS 7 with or without spiracles). Ultimate LBS considerably elongated with ultimate tergite nearly twice as long the penultimate one. Coxopleuron virtually without process (Fig. 37), sometimes with a single spine at its place. Tarsus of legs 1–19 monopartite; legs with two tibial spurs and one tarsal spur. Ultimate legs forcipulate (Figs 33, 37), swollen, strongly sclerotized, truly “pincer-shaped” (sensu Schileyko 2009) with all articles much shortened and enlarged, excluding falcate pretarsus which is considerably elongated being at least as long as corresponding tarsus 2 (or much longer; see below). Dorsal and medial surface of both prefemur and femur flat, these articles with or without (Fig. 37) ventral spines. Edgecombe &amp; Bonato (2011: 395) also wrote: “Poison calyx extending into the forcipular coxosternite… Gizzard with stiff anteriorly/directed projections; projections evenly curved, covered by multifurcating scales that spirally encircle the projection, branching into slender, needle-like spines”.</p><p>Number of subtaxa. 2 genera.</p><p>Sexual dimorphism. Unknown.</p><p>Range. Southern Europe (Southern Iberian Peninsula, Southern Italian Peninsula, Balkan Peninsula, Sardinia, Sicily); South-West, East and South-East of USA , Northern Mexico; Central China (Sichuan, Hunan, Gansu) .</p><p>Remarks. Treated as a family in Edgecombe &amp; Bonato (2011: 395), Edgecombe et al. (2012: 770), Vahtera et al. (2012a: 9, 2012b: 229, 2013: 580), Bonato et al. (2017: 2).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03DE092DFFE4D71DFF13F9202E0BDF0A	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Schileyko, Arkady A.;Vahtera, Varpu;Edgecombe, Gregory D.	Schileyko, Arkady A., Vahtera, Varpu, Edgecombe, Gregory D. (2020): An overview of the extant genera and subgenera of the order Scolopendromorpha (Chilopoda): a new identification key and updated diagnoses. Zootaxa 4825 (1): 1-64, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4825.1.1
03DE092DFFE5D71DFF13FC872E14DA53.text	03DE092DFFE5D71DFF13FC872E14DA53.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Plutonium Cavanna 1881	<div><p>(!) Plutonium Cavanna, 1881</p><p>Type species. Plutonium zwierleini Cavanna, 1881 (by monotypy).</p><p>Diagnosis. LBS 2–20 with spiracles (figs 5 EG in Bonato et al. 2017). Coxopleuron lacks spine at the place of corresponding process. Prefemur and femur of the ultimate legs lacking spines; pretarsus much longer than tarsal articles taken together and “expanding ventrally in a sclerotized ridge” (Bonato et al. 2017: 11) i.e. blade-like.</p><p>Number of species. 1.</p><p>Remarks. Treated as a genus in Di et al. (2010: 51), Edgecombe &amp; Bonato (2011: 395), Bonato et al. (2017: 1); not included in Vahtera et al. (2012a). The most recent morphological account on Plutonium — Bonato et al. (2017) —lacks information on structure of maxillae 2.</p><p>As for possible non-monophyly of Plutonium, we agree with Di et al. (2010: 55) who wrote: ”In Plutoniumidae, the morphological analyses … retrieved Theatops as a paraphyletic group, i.e., Plutonium is nested within Theatops ... A three-genus classification … would increase paraphyly rather than lessen it ... We do not place Plutonium in synonymy under Theatops, which would eliminate non-monophyletic taxa from Plutoniumidae …”. That suggestion was confirmed partially by Bonato et al. (2017: 17), who noted that their molecular data did “not decisively favour any of the two alternative hypotheses: (1) Plutonium and Theatops represent two separate lineages, which is consistent with a previous hypothesis elaborated on morphological similarities (Shelley, 1997) and in agreement with current taxonomy, (2) Plutonium is a derived lineage within Theatops, which is supported also by previous cladistic analyses on morpho-anatomical data”. Because of its unique segmental distribution of the spiracles, we think that Plutonium should be kept as a genus at the moment.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03DE092DFFE5D71DFF13FC872E14DA53	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Schileyko, Arkady A.;Vahtera, Varpu;Edgecombe, Gregory D.	Schileyko, Arkady A., Vahtera, Varpu, Edgecombe, Gregory D. (2020): An overview of the extant genera and subgenera of the order Scolopendromorpha (Chilopoda): a new identification key and updated diagnoses. Zootaxa 4825 (1): 1-64, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4825.1.1
03DE092DFFE5D713FF13F97C2F4CDD02.text	03DE092DFFE5D713FF13F97C2F4CDD02.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Theatops Newport 1844	<div><p>(!) Theatops Newport, 1844</p><p>Figs 33–37</p><p>Type species. Cryptops posticus Say, 1821 (by subsequent designation).</p><p>Diagnosis. Spiracles (figs 1AB in Vahtera et al. 2012b, fig. 5 F in Bonato et al. 2017) on macrosegments, LBS 7 with or without spiracles. Coxopleuron (Fig. 37) usually with a spine at the place of corresponding process. Prefemur and femur of the ultimate legs (Figs 33, 37) with or without spines; pretarsus not shorter than corresponding tarsus 2 (in T. posticus (Say, 1821) longer than the two tarsal articles together), circular in cross section (i.e. not blade-like ventrally).</p><p>Number of species. 6 (Bonato et al. 2016).</p><p>Remarks. Treated as a genus in Di et al. (2010: 51), Edgecombe &amp; Bonato (2011: 395), Vahtera et al. (2012a: 5), Bonato et al. (2017: 1).</p><p>Edgecombe &amp; Koch (2008: 894) described the pretarsus of maxillae 2 in both T. erythrocephalus (C.L. Koch, 1847) and T. posticus as “two curved processes, one above the other”. The most recent account on Theatops — Di et al. (2010) —contains no information on structure of maxillae 2. A re-studied adult (Rc 6489) of T. spinicaudus Wood, 1862 demonstrates not “two curved processes” but a pretarsus and a much shorter ventral projection (see also Diagnosis of Plutoniumidae above) whereas in two adults (Rc 6488, 6493) of T. posticus the ventral projection is nearly as long as the pretarsus.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03DE092DFFE5D713FF13F97C2F4CDD02	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Schileyko, Arkady A.;Vahtera, Varpu;Edgecombe, Gregory D.	Schileyko, Arkady A., Vahtera, Varpu, Edgecombe, Gregory D. (2020): An overview of the extant genera and subgenera of the order Scolopendromorpha (Chilopoda): a new identification key and updated diagnoses. Zootaxa 4825 (1): 1-64, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4825.1.1
03DE092DFFEBD713FF13FE8F2E2AD94A.text	03DE092DFFEBD713FF13FE8F2E2AD94A.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Scolopendridae Leach 1814	<div><p>Family Scolopendridae Leach, 1814</p><p>Diagnosis. Four ocelli (Fig. 52) form a “rhomboid cluster” (the only blind exceptions—the genus Tonkinodentus and a clade of Western Australian Cormocephalus species; see below). Labrum with a single median tooth (fig. 7 of Waldock &amp; Edgecombe 2012). Pretarsus of maxillae 2 not pectinate, robust and straight (Figs 59, 74, 80), accompanied by 2 (more rarely by 0 or 1) accessory spine(s). Anterior margin of forcipular coxosternite (Figs 40, 42, 50, 86) with tooth-plates (except for the monotypic genus Edentistoma; Fig. 114). Forcipular trochantero-prefemur practically always with well-developed process, the latter may be simple or furnished by 1–3 lateral tubercles. Sternites in most genera with longitudinal paramedian sutures. 21 LBS (21, 23, 39, 43 in Scolopendropsis only); spiracles on macrosegments, LBS 7 with or without spiracles. Ultimate LBS (Fig. 38) generally considerably shorter than the penultimate one (except for Scolopendropsis, Fig. 45). Tarsus of locomotory legs with two articles; legs with or without 1 or 2 tibial spurs and 1 tarsal spur. Coxopleuron usually with process (Fig. 49). Ultimate legs in most genera and species of “common” shape, rarely “pincer-shaped” or “leaf-shaped” (sensu Schileyko 2009). Prefemur of the ultimate legs without spinous processes but generally with varying number (2–20) of strongly chitinized spines, that are usually small (Figs 44, 49, 66, 70, 83) but rarely much enlarged, for example in Kanparka (= Scolopendra) (Fig. 56) or a few forms of Ethmostigmus Pocock, 1898 (Fig. 105, figs 36, 39 in Schileyko &amp; Stoev 2016). Edgecombe &amp; Bonato (2011: 395) also wrote: “Labral bristle field completely covering distal sclerotisation of epipharynx (except Notiasemus; [no data on Tonkinodentus]); elongate, figure eight shaped groups of two smooth depressions surrounding each sensillum on clypeal part or epipharynx. Tufts of bristles on lateral flaps of hypopharynx form a continuous field with identical bristles medially… Poison calyx extending at least as far as proximal part of forcipular trochantero-prefemur… Spermatophore with a ventral invagination.”</p><p>Number of subtaxa. 2 subfamilies, 19 genera (“More than 400 species in 21 genera” sensu Edgecombe &amp; Bonato 2011: 397).</p><p>Sexual dimorphism. Present rarely.</p><p>Range. All tropical, subtropical and warm temperate regions.</p><p>Remarks. Treated as a family in Edgecombe &amp; Bonato (2011: 395), Kronmüller (2012: 19), Edgecombe et al. (2012: 770), Vahtera et al. (2012a: 4, 2012b: 235, 2013: 578), Schileyko (2014: 174), Schileyko &amp; Stoev (2016: 252), Schileyko (2018: 69), Schileyko &amp; Solovyeva (2019: 138).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03DE092DFFEBD713FF13FE8F2E2AD94A	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Schileyko, Arkady A.;Vahtera, Varpu;Edgecombe, Gregory D.	Schileyko, Arkady A., Vahtera, Varpu, Edgecombe, Gregory D. (2020): An overview of the extant genera and subgenera of the order Scolopendromorpha (Chilopoda): a new identification key and updated diagnoses. Zootaxa 4825 (1): 1-64, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4825.1.1
03DE092DFFEBD711FF13FA472C67DDEA.text	03DE092DFFEBD711FF13FA472C67DDEA.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Scolopendrinae Leach 1814	<div><p>Subfamily Scolopendrinae Leach, 1814</p><p>Synonyms. Perustigminae Verhoeff, 1941</p><p>Diagnosis. Anterior margin of forcipular coxosternite with tooth-plates; forcipular trochantero-prefemur with welldeveloped process. Sternites with well-developed (usually complete in most sternites) paramedian sutures, in most genera without depressions (may be present in the former Asanadini). Elongated spiracles slit-like, triangular in overwhelming majority of species (oval in some Cormocephalus) with well-developed atrium divided by a typical three-valved “flap” (Fig. 51, fig. 8 of Waldock &amp; Edgecombe 2012). LBS 7 without spiracles. Legs (Fig. 48) usually with one (leg 1 sometimes with 2, penultimate leg sometimes lacking) tarsal spur(s). These spurs are totally absent in the Cormocephalus -clade (i.e. Cormocephalus + Hemiscolopendra + Akymnopellis + Campylostigmus) and in the genus Asanada the presence of these spurs may even be subject to intraspecific variability (see below). Ultimate legs in most genera of “common” shape (Figs 54, 65, 70), more rarely quasi “pincer-shaped” (i.e. much shortened and enlarged except for pretarsus, for example in Asanada and the former genus Kanparka, Figs 81 and 57 respectively) or even truly “pincer-shaped” ( Scolopendropsis and some species of Cormocephalus (Cormocephalus), Figs 45, 64). Ultimate leg prefemur practically always with some chitinized spines (their number may vary considerably; Figs 44, 49, 56, 72) plus corner spine (Figs 54, 57); claw-shaped pretarsus well-developed. Edgecombe &amp; Bonato (2011: 397) also wrote: “Posteriorly directed spines along plicae of gizzard.”</p><p>Number of subtaxa. 11 genera (“More than 220 species in 12 genera” sensu Edgecombe &amp; Bonato 2011: 397).</p><p>Sexual dimorphism. Present in a few species of both Scolopendra and Akymnopellis and, likely, in Tonkinodentus (see below).</p><p>Range. All tropical, subtropical and warm temperate regions.</p><p>Remarks. Treated as a subfamily in Edgecombe &amp; Bonato (2011: 397), Vahtera et al. (2012a: 4, 2012b: 238, 2013: 579), Schileyko (2014: 174), Schileyko &amp; Stoev (2016: 252), Schileyko (2018: 69), Schileyko &amp; Solovyeva (2019: 138).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03DE092DFFEBD711FF13FA472C67DDEA	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Schileyko, Arkady A.;Vahtera, Varpu;Edgecombe, Gregory D.	Schileyko, Arkady A., Vahtera, Varpu, Edgecombe, Gregory D. (2020): An overview of the extant genera and subgenera of the order Scolopendromorpha (Chilopoda): a new identification key and updated diagnoses. Zootaxa 4825 (1): 1-64, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4825.1.1
03DE092DFFD1D729FF13FAF42F41DBC9.text	03DE092DFFD1D729FF13FAF42F41DBC9.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Psiloscolopendra Kraepelin 1903	<div><p>Psiloscolopendra Kraepelin, 1903</p><p>Type species. Scolopendra feae Pocock, 1891 (by original designation).</p><p>Diagnosis. Cephalic plate overlapping anterior margin of tergite 1, with weak median incomplete sulcus/depression in the posterior half. Forcipular tooth-plates well-developed but small, trochantero-prefemoral process very small. Tergite 1 lacking sutures. Legs lacking tarsal spurs, pretarsal accessory spines present; tarsus 1 longer than tarsus 2. Coxopleural process short, conical with apical spine only, no other coxopleural spines. Ultimate sternite longer than wide, with straight posterior margin and without(?) median longitudinal sulcus. Ultimate legs of “common” shape; prefemoral corner spine with a single spine apically, pretarsus with only poorly-developed accessory spine.</p><p>Number of species. 1.</p><p>Sexual dimorphism. Unknown.</p><p>Remarks. Treated as a genus in Edgecombe &amp; Bonato (2011: 399). As there are very little available morphological data on Psiloscolopendra, the information given by Attems (1930) (who apparently copied the data of Kraepelin 1903) is the last taxonomic scrutiny of this enigmatic genus. No information on structure of either the pleuron or the spiracles is available; this is the only scolopendromorph genus that is not even known from drawings. Psiloscolopendra is presumably closest to Notiasemus and Akymnopellis, i.e. to those scolopendrines that have legs without tarsal spurs and tergite 1 lacking any sutures. We have kept Psiloscolopendra as a valid taxon, but the “diagnostic” characters listed above (see the key) do not allow its unambiguous identification; more material is necessary to confirm its validity.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03DE092DFFD1D729FF13FAF42F41DBC9	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Schileyko, Arkady A.;Vahtera, Varpu;Edgecombe, Gregory D.	Schileyko, Arkady A., Vahtera, Varpu, Edgecombe, Gregory D. (2020): An overview of the extant genera and subgenera of the order Scolopendromorpha (Chilopoda): a new identification key and updated diagnoses. Zootaxa 4825 (1): 1-64, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4825.1.1
03DE092DFFD7D72FFF13FF762E93DFF7.text	03DE092DFFD7D72FFF13FF762E93DFF7.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Notiasemus L. E. Koch 1985	<div><p>(!) Notiasemus L.E. Koch, 1985</p><p>Figs 73–77</p><p>Type species. Notiasemus glauerti L.E. Koch, 1985 (by original designation).</p><p>Diagnosis. Cephalic plate abuts tergite 1 across its width, without sutures (Fig. 75). Forcipular tooth-plates welldeveloped but relatively small (Fig. 76), much shorter than trochantero-prefemoral processes. Pleuron typical for Scolopendrini (Figs 73, 77); spiracles open laterally, edges of peritrema not curved. Legs lacking tarsal spurs, with pretarsal accessory spines; tarsus 1 slightly longer than (sometimes nearly as long as) tarsus 2. Coxopleural processes conical, short and wide at base, with apical spine only (Fig. 73); ultimate sternite with well-developed median longitudinal sulcus/depression. Ultimate legs of “common” shape (Fig. 73), pretarsus with short accessory spines. Edgecombe &amp; Bonato (2011: 399) also wrote: “Narrow band of uniformly long, simple bristles on each side of the labral tooth” (figs 3A, C of Edgecombe &amp; Koch 2009).</p><p>Number of species. 1.</p><p>Sexual dimorphism. Unknown.</p><p>Remarks. Treated as a genus in Edgecombe &amp; Bonato (2011: 399). The most recent account on Notiasemus is Vahtera et al. (2013) who based on the first molecular data for N. glauerti wrote (p. 593): “ Notiasemus is resolved within Scolopendrini and is consistently placed within Cormocephalus ” and later: “We conclude from this that the morphological evidence for a basal position of Notiasemus in Scolopendridae is probably incorrect and N. glauerti needs to be reinterpreted as a morphologically anomalous member of Cormocephalus . However, due to low nodal support within the clade, we do not yet suggest synonymy of Notiasemus with Cormocephalus ”. This point of view is also supported by the fact, that “The peristomatic structures of Notiasemus glauerti show a unique combination of characteristics of blind and ocellate scolopendromorphs” (Edgecombe &amp; Koch 2009: 303). Thus at the moment Notiasemus is an independent member of Scolopendrini / Scolopendrinae .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03DE092DFFD7D72FFF13FF762E93DFF7	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Schileyko, Arkady A.;Vahtera, Varpu;Edgecombe, Gregory D.	Schileyko, Arkady A., Vahtera, Varpu, Edgecombe, Gregory D. (2020): An overview of the extant genera and subgenera of the order Scolopendromorpha (Chilopoda): a new identification key and updated diagnoses. Zootaxa 4825 (1): 1-64, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4825.1.1
03DE092DFFD7D72DFF13FBD8283BDD5E.text	03DE092DFFD7D72DFF13FBD8283BDD5E.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Scolopendropsis Brandt 1841	<div><p>(!) Scolopendropsis Brandt, 1841</p><p>Figs 42–47</p><p>Synonyms. Rhoda Meinert, 1886: 188 syn. nov.</p><p>Type species. Scolopendra bahiensis Brandt, 1841 (by original designation).</p><p>Diagnosis. Cephalic plate considerably narrower than tergite 1 (Fig. 45), with incomplete (but well-developed) posterior median suture extending for 1/2–3/4 of its length (Fig. 46, fig. 2 in Schileyko 2006), its posterior margin clearly overlapped by tergite 1. Forcipular tooth-plates well-developed (Fig. 42), from visibly shorter to longer than trochantero-prefemoral process. Anterior part of pleuron includes a set of longitudinal pleurites coaxial with body axis (fig. 4 in Schileyko 2006); longitudinal pleurites are numerous and so closely stacked to each other that the intersclerite membrane (= membranous part of pleura) is inconspicuous between them (fig. 12 in Chagas-Jr et al. 2008). Spiracles open laterally, edges of peritrema not curved. Number of LBS either fixed as 21 or variable within a species, when variable either 21–23 (in Scolopendropsis bahiensis) or 39–43 (in S. duplicata Chagas-Jr, Edgecombe &amp; Minelli, 2008). Leg with tarsus 2 approximately twice as long as tarsus 1 (Fig. 42), both tarsal spur and pretarsal accessory spines well-developed; tarsal spurs absent in Rhoda thayeri (= Scolopendropsis thayeri (Meinert, 1886) syn. nov.; see below). Pretarsi with abrupt transition from a pale-coloured proximal third to a strongly pigmented distal two-thirds, the latter has a concave ventral surface bounded laterally by sharp marginal ridges. Ultimate segment (Figs 47) considerably (sometimes nearly twice) longer than penultimate (Fig. 45). Coxopleuron lacking processes, with a spine in its place (Fig. 43); ultimate sternite with well-developed median longitudinal sulcus/depression. Ultimate legs truly “pincer-shaped” (Figs 45, 47), prefemur with spines; pretarsus elongated (but no longer than ultimate tarsus 2) and falcate, lacking accessory spines.</p><p>Number of species. 5.</p><p>Sexual dimorphism. Unknown.</p><p>Remarks. Treated as a genus (“ Scolopendropsis incl. Rhoda ”) in Edgecombe &amp; Bonato (2011: 399). The most recent morphological accounts on this genus are those by Schileyko (2006) and Chagas-Jr et al. (2008).</p><p>Schileyko (2006: 15) noted that such an unusual structure/composition of the pleuron (see above) is “unique among Scolopendromorpha ”; in fact the similar morphology is also observed (at least) in Cormocephalus mediosulcatus Attems, 1928 (see Chagas-Jr et al. 2008: 37) and in Scolopendra afer (Meinert, 1886) . Schileyko (2009: 519) stated that the elongation of the ultimate LBS always correlates with the ‘pincer’-shaped ultimate legs (Fig. 45) and “Such an enlargement may be due to the presence of enlarged muscles, which are necessary to manipulate these appendages”. It should be noted also that such a structure (with their ventral surface concave) of pretarsi of locomotory legs is very unusual among scolopendromorphs, which normally have these pretarsi round/oval in cross-section.</p><p>Schileyko (2006) analyzed in details the closest similarity of Scolopendropsis and Rhoda based on several unique synapomorphies, but kept the latter as an independent genus for “formal reasons alone” (Schileyko 2006: 16). Subsequent studies of this monophyletic group have confirmed the closest relations between Scolopendropsis and Rhoda (Chagas-Jr et al. 2008), and no diagnostic characters serve to separate them. Taking in consideration these facts we consider Rhoda Meinert, 1886 to be a junior synonym of Scolopendropsis Brandt, 1841 syn. nov.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03DE092DFFD7D72DFF13FBD8283BDD5E	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Schileyko, Arkady A.;Vahtera, Varpu;Edgecombe, Gregory D.	Schileyko, Arkady A., Vahtera, Varpu, Edgecombe, Gregory D. (2020): An overview of the extant genera and subgenera of the order Scolopendromorpha (Chilopoda): a new identification key and updated diagnoses. Zootaxa 4825 (1): 1-64, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4825.1.1
03DE092DFFD5D722FF13F8E82974DE9B.text	03DE092DFFD5D722FF13F8E82974DE9B.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Asanadopsis Wurmli 1972	<div><p>Asanadopsis Würmli, 1972</p><p>Type species. Asanadopsis nueschi Würmli, 1972 (by original designation).</p><p>Diagnosis. Antennae very short, not reaching the anterior margin of tergite 1 when reflexed, cephalic plate with very short and wide apart paired sutures in the middle (fig. 5 of Würmli 1972). Legs without tarsal spur. Ultimate sternite without median sulcus.</p><p>Number of species. 1.</p><p>Sexual dimorphism. Unknown.</p><p>Remarks. Treated as a genus in Edgecombe &amp; Bonato (2011: 400), Bonato et al. (2017: 19). There are no available data on this genus except for the original description. The only real difference between this doubtful monotypic genus (known from the holotype only) and the close relative Asanada seems to be a presence of short paired cephalic sutures in the former. The very uncertain and minor differences in the length of antennae, shape/length of a dorsal brush of maxillae 2, and the shape of lateral margins[!] of tergites 1–2 etc. mentioned by Edgecombe &amp; Bonato (2011: 400) are at most of intrageneric level and do not support generic status of Asanadopsis . For example two adult specimens of Asanada indica mentioned above (Rc 7484) have the antenna barely reaching tergite 1 (Fig. 79) and the dorsal brush of maxillae 2 very short. Also Würmli (1972: 95) wrote that his Asanadopsis nueschi “im ganzen steht sie aber der Asanada-philippina -gruppe sehr nahe”. Thus, in our opinion, this form seems to be no more than a species of Asanada, but we prefer to retain it until the type series is found and re-investigated.</p><p>Asanadopsis nueschi was described from “Mau Marru, Ostsumba” (East Sumba, Indonesia), but Edgecombe &amp; Bonato (2011: 400) erroneously stated the range of Asanadopsis to be “ Sulawesi ”.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03DE092DFFD5D722FF13F8E82974DE9B	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Schileyko, Arkady A.;Vahtera, Varpu;Edgecombe, Gregory D.	Schileyko, Arkady A., Vahtera, Varpu, Edgecombe, Gregory D. (2020): An overview of the extant genera and subgenera of the order Scolopendromorpha (Chilopoda): a new identification key and updated diagnoses. Zootaxa 4825 (1): 1-64, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4825.1.1
03DE092DFFDAD722FF13FD372F88DA4E.text	03DE092DFFDAD722FF13FD372F88DA4E.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Otostigminae Kraepelin 1903	<div><p>Subfamily Otostigminae Kraepelin, 1903</p><p>Diagnosis. Anterior margin of forcipular coxosternite (Figs 86, 96, 100, 111) with tooth-plates (except for Edentistoma, Fig. 114); forcipular trochantero-prefemur in most genera with well-developed process (the latter virtually absent in Ethmostigmus (Fig. 102), Edentistoma and Sterropristini Verhoeff, 1937). Tergites with (Fig. 87) or without longitudinal keels. Sternites with paramedian sutures developed to varying degrees (totally absent in Edentistoma) and in most both genera and species with a few (from 1 to 5) depressions of varied size and shape (rounded and/or longitudinal). LBS 7 with or without spiracles. The spiracles oval or round, of open type (i.e. without any covering “flap”), in most genera with well-developed atrium (Figs 82, 108), sometimes exceptionally shallow, for example in Ethmostigmus (Fig. 103) and Edentistoma (Fig. 115); the atrial floor raised in humps (Fig. 108). Legs with 1 or 2 tarsal spur(s), sometimes with 1 tibial spur as well. Ultimate legs of “common” shape (Figs 83, 101, 110) in most genera of Otostigmini (except for “leaf-shaped” ones in Alipes Imhoff, 1854 (Fig. 84) and quasi “pincer-shaped” in Edentistoma) and truly “pincer-shaped” in Sterropristini (Fig. 119). Ultimate prefemur with (Figs 83, 101) or without (in Otostigmus (Parotostigmus) Pocock, 1896 (Fig. 97), Alipes, Edentistioma and Sterropristes) some spines and with or without corner spine. Claw-shaped ultimate pretarsus (Fig. 101) present (virtually absent in Alipes only, Fig. 85); when pretarsus strongly elongated and enlarged (Fig. 119) it usually lacks accessory spines. Vahtera &amp; Edgecombe (2014) also wrote: “lateral clusters of sensilla on the clypeal part of the epipharynx.”</p><p>Number of subtaxa. 8 genera (10 taxa of genus-group). “Ca 200 species in nine genera” sensu Edgecombe &amp; Bonato (2011: 400), “115 valid species” sensu Vahtera &amp; Edgecombe (2014: 7).</p><p>Sexual dimorphism. Present in 5 taxa of genus-group.</p><p>Range. From the Canary Islands through all Africa (and neighboring islands) and southern half of Asia to Australia, New Guinea, New Zealand and Pacific Islands (incl. Bismarck Archipelago, Solomon Islands, Polynesia); Neotropics including Caribbean.</p><p>Remarks. Treated as a subfamily in Edgecombe &amp; Bonato (2011: 400), Vahtera et al. (2012a: 13), Vahtera et al. (2012b: 235), Vahtera &amp; Edgecombe (2014: 7).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03DE092DFFDAD722FF13FD372F88DA4E	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Schileyko, Arkady A.;Vahtera, Varpu;Edgecombe, Gregory D.	Schileyko, Arkady A., Vahtera, Varpu, Edgecombe, Gregory D. (2020): An overview of the extant genera and subgenera of the order Scolopendromorpha (Chilopoda): a new identification key and updated diagnoses. Zootaxa 4825 (1): 1-64, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4825.1.1
03DE092DFFDAD723FF13F9432DA3DE9A.text	03DE092DFFDAD723FF13F9432DA3DE9A.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Otostigmini Kraepelin 1903	<div><p>Tribe Otostigmini Kraepelin, 1903</p><p>Synonyms. Arrhabdotini Attems, 1930</p><p>Diagnosis. Antenna relatively long (i.e. reaching at least to posterior margin of tergite 4 when reflexed), basal antennal articles cylindrical (not strongly flattened), definitely longer than wide. Median tooth of labrum (Fig. 95) well developed (except for Edentistoma, former tribe Arrhabdotini; see below). Forcipular tooth-plates present (except for Edentistoma), their basal sutures form a virtually straight line (Fig. 96), right angle (Fig. 91) or an obtuse angle (Fig. 86, 100, 106); trochantero-prefemoral process present in most genera. Tarsungula long in most of genera (Fig. 96), much elongated in Edentistoma and visibly shortened in Sterropristes (compare Fig. 114 and Fig. 120); their inner surface rounded or with 1 or 2 sharp longitudinal ridges, rarely saw-like (in Sterropristes only). LBS 7 with or without spiracles. Pleuron (Figs 82, 103) with intersclerite membrane well visible, without set of longitudinal pleurites anteriorly. Coxopleuron with (Fig. 104, 105) or without (in Otostigmus (Parotostigmus) (Fig. 99) and Alipes) well-developed process. Ultimate leg pretarsus claw-shaped, well-developed in most genera. Edgecombe &amp; Bonato (2011: 400) also wrote: “ Border between labral and clypeal part of epipharynx strongly curved forwards... Testicular vesicles oriented oblique to central deferens duct”.</p><p>Number of subtaxa. 6 genera (3 subgenera in genus Otostigmus). “Ca 200 species in six genera” sensu Edgecombe &amp; Bonato (2011: 400).</p><p>Range. As for family.</p><p>Sexual dimorphism. Present in 3 taxa of genus-group.</p><p>Remarks. Treated as a tribe in Edgecombe &amp; Bonato (2011: 400), Vahtera et al. (2012a: 7, 2012b: 235), Vahtera et al. (2013: 578), Vahtera &amp; Edgecombe (2014: 2, 5, 7). In 2013 Vahtera et al. wrote (p. 578): “The generic classification of Otostigmini has a poor fit to phylogenetic relationships, although nodal support within this tribe is weak”.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03DE092DFFDAD723FF13F9432DA3DE9A	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Schileyko, Arkady A.;Vahtera, Varpu;Edgecombe, Gregory D.	Schileyko, Arkady A., Vahtera, Varpu, Edgecombe, Gregory D. (2020): An overview of the extant genera and subgenera of the order Scolopendromorpha (Chilopoda): a new identification key and updated diagnoses. Zootaxa 4825 (1): 1-64, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4825.1.1
03DE092DFFDBD721FF13FD37293CDCC9.text	03DE092DFFDBD721FF13FD37293CDCC9.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Otostigmus (Otostigmus) (Otostigmus) Porat 1876	<div><p>(!) Otostigmus (Otostigmus) Porat, 1876</p><p>Figs 82, 83, 93–96</p><p>Type species. Otostigmus carinatus Porat, 1876 (by subsequent designation of Pocock 1891).</p><p>It should be noted that O. carinatus has been synonymised to O. scaber (described by Porat in the same paper of 1876) by Kraepelin (1903: 111). Also, Bonato et al. (2016) correctly mentioned that the type species of Otostigmus sensu stricto was fixed by Pocock (1891: 229), but they erroneously wrote that the type species of Otostigmus was fixed by Attems[!] (1930: 229), whereas in fact Attems erroneously mentioned as a type species O. orientalis Porat, 1876 (p. 129 therein).</p><p>Diagnosis. Median tooth of labrum well developed (Fig. 94). Second article of telopodite of maxilla 2 with (in most species) or without dorsal distal spur; pretarsus with 1 or 2 (Fig. 95) accessory spines. Forcipular tooth-plates present, trochantero-prefemur with well-developed process (Fig. 96). In a few species tergites with longitudinal keels (fig. 16 in Schileyko &amp; Stoev 2016). Sternites with paramedian sutures (more rarely sulci) developed to varying degrees and, sometimes with median and paired lateral depressions. LBS 7 lacking spiracles, the latter in most species with deep atrium (Fig. 82). Legs with tarsal spur(s) in the overwhelming majority of species. Posterior margin of male ultimate tergite without elongated projection. Coxopleural process in most species well-developed (if so, it is oriented caudad; Fig. 93), with apical (in most species plus lateral and sometimes plus dorsal) spines; in a few species coxopleural process much reduced (figs 59, 60 in Lewis 2014). Prefemur of the ultimate leg with spines (Fig. 83) and with or without (more or less developed) corner spine, pretarsus well-developed.</p><p>Number of species. 58 (Lewis 2014: 388).</p><p>Sexual dimorphism. Unknown.</p><p>Remarks. Treated as a subgenus in Lewis (2010b: 1, 2014: 388), Edgecombe &amp; Bonato (2011: 400), Schileyko &amp; Stoev (2016: 253); the latter is the most recent morphological account on Otostigmus (Otostigmus) .</p><p>In the nominotypical subgenus the presence and number of the maxilla 2 spurs and accessory spines may be subject to both individual and interspecific variability, thus these characters cannot be used (alone) in Otostigmus for separating species as well as subgenera.</p><p>Traditionally the presence of both tergal keels (Fig. 87) and spinules are used in Otostigminae as one of the main diagnostic characters. However, it has been already mentioned (Schileyko &amp; Stoev (2016: 255) that presence of the tergal keels is not always reliable for distinguishing species in Otostigmus (Otostigmus) because it may be species-specific (eg, O. scaber Porat, 1876, O. amballae Chamberlin, 1913, O. orientalis Porat, 1876), whereas it varies significantly in other species (eg, O. multidens Haase, 1887). The presence of tergal spinules may also vary intraspecifically in Otostigmus (Otostigmus) from well-developed to nearly absent, so both these characters should not be used alone in the corresponding keys.</p><p>According to recent molecular investigations that include most genera of Otostigminae the genus Otostigmus (in general) is non-monophyletic (Siriwut et al. 2018). Vahtera et al. (2014: 7) wrote that “ Otostigmus is likewise polyphyletic in all three analyses but can be seen to comprise three groupings that have biogeographic signal: a basal grade is composed of Asian and Pacific species, whereas the exemplars from North Africa and the Canary Islands … and the Caribbean … are allied to other otostigmine genera” (see also below).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03DE092DFFDBD721FF13FD37293CDCC9	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Schileyko, Arkady A.;Vahtera, Varpu;Edgecombe, Gregory D.	Schileyko, Arkady A., Vahtera, Varpu, Edgecombe, Gregory D. (2020): An overview of the extant genera and subgenera of the order Scolopendromorpha (Chilopoda): a new identification key and updated diagnoses. Zootaxa 4825 (1): 1-64, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4825.1.1
03DE092DFFD9D721FF13FEC72C26DA91.text	03DE092DFFD9D721FF13FEC72C26DA91.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Otostigmus (Parotostigmus) Pocock 1896	<div><p>(!) Otostigmus (Parotostigmus) Pocock, 1896</p><p>Figs 97–100</p><p>Synonyms. Androtostigmus Verhoeff, 1937, Ecuadopleurus Verhoeff, 1937, Congobius Dobroruka, 1968 .</p><p>Type species. Branchiostoma scabricauda Humbert &amp; Saussure, 1870 (by subsequent designation of Attems 1928).</p><p>Diagnosis. Median tooth of labrum well developed. Second article of telopodite of maxilla 2 with or without dorsal distal spur; pretarsus with (Fig. 100) or without accessory spines (see Remarks below). Forcipular tooth-plates present (Fig. 100), trochantero-prefemur with well-developed process (as in nominate subgenus; figs 55, 58 in Schileyko 2014). Tergites with longitudinal keels in some species (figs 49–51 in Schileyko 2014). Sternites without (in some species with poorly-developed incomplete) paramedian sutures, in most species with median and lateral depressions (fig. 55 in Schileyko 2014) developed to varying degrees. LBS 7 lacking spiracles, the latter with a deep atrium. In the overwhelming majority of species legs with tarsal spur(s). Posterior margin of ultimate tergite (Fig. 98) of the male without elongated projection. Coxopleural process very short and rounded apically, oriented caudad (with or without apical spines) or virtually lacking (Figs 97, 99), if so a few apical spines may be situated at its place. Prefemur of the ultimate leg (Figs 97–99) without both spines and corner spine. In a dozen of the known Parotostigmus species the interior surface of the male’s prefemur bears a digitiform process (Figs 97–99)—a cylindrical (in some species clavate) projection attached to the base of the prefemur (see also Schileyko 2014: 177). Ultimate pretarsus well-developed.</p><p>Number of species. “More than 50 species” sensu Edgecombe &amp; Bonato (2011: 400), 53 (Bonato et al. 2016).</p><p>Sexual dimorphism. Present in ca 20 species.</p><p>Remarks. Treated as a subgenus in Edgecombe &amp; Bonato (2011: 402), Chagas-Jr (2012: 1, 2016: 36), Vahtera (2012a: 13, 2013: 594), Schileyko (2014: 177).</p><p>The presence of both spurs on the telopodite and/or accessory spine(s) of maxillae 2 (Fig. 100) may be subject to individual and/or intraspecific variability in Parotostigmus. For example an adult male of O. (P.) diringshofeni Bücherl, 1969 (Rc 7870 in ZMMU from Peru) has the right pretarsus with one accessory spine (the left one has none) and the left telopodite with usual dorso-distal spur on the second article (the right telopodite has no such spur). At the same time, an adult female of O. (P.) pococki Kraepelin, 1903 (Rc 7563 in ZMMU from Peru) has maxillae 2 with both a pretarsal accessory spine and a telopodite spur. An adult male of O. (P.) scabricauda (Humbert &amp; Saussure, 1870) (Rc 6346 in ZMMU from Peru) has both these appendages with a well-developed telopodite spur but only one pretarsus is equipped with a recognizable accessory spine. We should note that accessory spine(s) are quite slim in many species, delicate and closely attached to the pretarsus, sometimes being so hardly visible that an inexperienced person may easily overlook them (see also Lewis 2004). Summing up, we do not consider these structures reliable for the taxonomy of Parotostigmus.</p><p>The presence of both tergal keels and tergal spinules may vary intraspecifically in this subgenus; Schileyko (2014: 177) wrote: “For example, in O. (P.) scabricauda (Humbert &amp; Saussure, 1870), the spinules may be arranged along the keel (“spinulated keels”) but it is sometimes difficult to decide whether a specimen has tergal keels or just rows of spinules”.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03DE092DFFD9D721FF13FEC72C26DA91	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Schileyko, Arkady A.;Vahtera, Varpu;Edgecombe, Gregory D.	Schileyko, Arkady A., Vahtera, Varpu, Edgecombe, Gregory D. (2020): An overview of the extant genera and subgenera of the order Scolopendromorpha (Chilopoda): a new identification key and updated diagnoses. Zootaxa 4825 (1): 1-64, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4825.1.1
03DE092DFFD9D726FF13F9012FA1DED2.text	03DE092DFFD9D726FF13F9012FA1DED2.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Otostigmus (Dactylotergitius) Verhoeff 1937	<div><p>Otostigmus (Dactylotergitius) Verhoeff, 1937</p><p>Synonyms. Coxopleurotostigmus Bucherl, 1939 .</p><p>Type species. Otostigmus caudatus Brölemann, 1902 (by monotypy).</p><p>Diagnosis. Second article of telopodite of maxilla 2 without dorsal distal spur, pretarsus lacking accessory spines. Forcipular tooth-plates present, trochantero-prefemur with well-developed process (figs 2, 15 in Chagas-Jr et al. 2007). Tergites without longitudinal keels. Sternites with incomplete paramedian sutures anteriorly. LBS 7 lacking spiracles, the latter with atrium. Legs with tarsal spur(s). Caudal margin of ultimate tergite of the male medially elongated in digitiform projection (figs 3, 4, 17 in Chagas-Jr et al. 2007); the latter longer than the corresponding tergite, its caudal end with a tuft of setae on both lateral sides. Coxopleuron either lacking process (in O. (D.) caudatus Brölemann, 1902) or with apically pointed, spineless process (in males of O. (D.) cavalcantii Bücherl, 1939) oriented ventrad (figs 12, 18 in Chagas-Jr et al. 2007); in females of this species coxopleural process virtually absent. Prefemur of the ultimate leg lacking both spines and corner spine, pretarsus well-developed.</p><p>Number of species. 2 (Chagas-Jr 2012, Bonato et al. 2016).</p><p>Sexual dimorphism. Present in both species.</p><p>Remarks. Treated as a subgenus in Chagas-Jr et al. (2007: 57), Edgecombe &amp; Bonato (2011: 401), Chagas-Jr (2012: 1).</p><p>Revalidating O. ( Dactylotergitius) Chagas-Jr et al. (2007) wrote in its diagnosis (p. 58): “claw [= pretarsus] of the distal article of the second maxillary telopodite without accessory claw [= spine] and second article without [dorso-]distal spine [= spur]”. We note that the absence vs. presence of both of these structures is of minor taxonomic value (see Remarks on Parotostigmus above) and the females of Dactylotergitius cannot be separated morphologically from females of some species of Parotostigmus. The only recent account on Dactylotergitius (Chagas-Jr 2007) contained no information on structure of the labrum.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03DE092DFFD9D726FF13F9012FA1DED2	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Schileyko, Arkady A.;Vahtera, Varpu;Edgecombe, Gregory D.	Schileyko, Arkady A., Vahtera, Varpu, Edgecombe, Gregory D. (2020): An overview of the extant genera and subgenera of the order Scolopendromorpha (Chilopoda): a new identification key and updated diagnoses. Zootaxa 4825 (1): 1-64, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4825.1.1
03DE092DFFDED727FF13FCFF294EDE22.text	03DE092DFFDED727FF13FCFF294EDE22.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Digitipes Attems 1930	<div><p>(!) Digitipes Attems, 1930</p><p>Figs 89–92</p><p>Type species. Digitipes verdascens Attems, 1930 (by monotypy).</p><p>Diagnosis. Median tooth of labrum very small, much shorter than lateral labral lobes (Fig. 90). Forcipular toothplates present, trochantero-prefemur with well-developed process (Fig. 91). Rarely some posterior tergites with well-developed longitudinal keels (for example in D. barnabasi Jangi and Dass, 1984; see fig. 10 of Joshi &amp; Edgecombe 2013), usually these keels lacking or very poorly developed. Sternites may bear paramedian sutures (or sulci) as well as a median longitudinal sulcus and posterior depression (Fig. 92). LBS 7 lacking spiracles, the latter with atrium. Legs with tarsal spur(s), the only exception— D. nudus (Pocock, 1890) (former D. periyarensis Joshi &amp; Edgecombe, 2013) (see below). Coxopleural process from short to moderately long, with apical spines. Ultimate prefemur with spines but lacking corner spine, pretarsus well-developed. Femur of males with well-developed (but incomplete) medial longitudinal depression leading to an obtuse conical distomedial process (Fig. 89) that bears scattered setae (see also figs 9, 21, 42, 54 in Siriwut et al. 2015).</p><p>Number of species. 9 (Edgecombe &amp; Bonato 2011: 402), 11 (Bonato et al. 2016), 10 (Siriwut et al. 2015: 76).</p><p>Sexual dimorphism. Present.</p><p>Remarks. Treated as a genus in Edgecombe &amp; Bonato (2011: 402), Joshi &amp; Edgecombe (2013: 99), Vahtera et al. (2013: 594), Joshi &amp; Edgecombe (2018: 1318), Joshi &amp; Edgecombe (2019: 3). Siriwut et al. (2015) considered it as a genus but wrote (p. 83): “Within the Otostigminae, members of Digitipes were separated into two clades”. Joshi &amp; Edgecombe (2017) analyzed in detail the Indian species of this genus. More densely sampled molecular phylogenies by Siriwut et al. (2018) and Joshi et al. (2020) depicted Digitipes as monophyletic apart from the nesting of Otostigmus nudus Pocock, 1890 (former D. periyarensis) within it. However, more material should be studied (using both traditional and molecular approaches) to be sure to which genus (Otistigmus or Digitipes) this species belongs.</p><p>An incomplete (it lacks some posterior LBS) specimen of Digitipes sp. (Rc 7565 from E Gabon) has a very small median tooth of the labrum (Fig. 90), which is also characteristic within Otostigminae for Sterropristes + Edentistoma (see below), and an unusually wide process of the forcipular trochantero-prefemur (Fig. 91). In addition, this specimen has no legs with tarsal spurs (a very rare condition in Otostigminae), so it is similar to the former Digitipes periyarensis in this (and some other) morphological aspects.</p><p>An obtuse conical distomedial process of the femur of male Digitipes is (with the exception of being spineless) similar to the standard corner spine of the ultimate prefemur of Scolopendridae .</p><p>We consider this genus as problematic since the femoral characters are restricted to mature males such that the females of Digitipes cannot be morphologically separated from those of Otostigmus (Otostigmus) . In addition, “Specimens that possess the femoral process make up a small percentage of our total sample of Digitipes ” (Joshi &amp; Edgecombe 2013: 101). Analyzing the monophyly of Digitipes Vahtera et al. (2013: 595) wrote: “… the clade is sensitive to parameter set variation as it is resolved as monophyletic only under two of the six explored parameter sets”, although the data of Siriwut at al. (2018) and Joshi et al. (2020) strengthened the case for monophyly using more species.</p><p>All diagnostic features of Digitipes listed by Joshi &amp; Edgecombe (2013:100) except for the male’s longitudinal groove and distomedial process of the ultimate femur are shared by all representatives of the nominotypical subgenus of Otostigmus . The “composite description” of Digitipes provided by Siriwut at al. (2015: 75) also perfectly fits for Otostigmus (Otostigmus), apart from the aforementioned male characters. Taking into consideration the virtual morphological identity of these two genera, and the fact that the monophyly of Digitipes is not well supported by the morphological data, we consider this genus to require further investigation.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03DE092DFFDED727FF13FCFF294EDE22	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Schileyko, Arkady A.;Vahtera, Varpu;Edgecombe, Gregory D.	Schileyko, Arkady A., Vahtera, Varpu, Edgecombe, Gregory D. (2020): An overview of the extant genera and subgenera of the order Scolopendromorpha (Chilopoda): a new identification key and updated diagnoses. Zootaxa 4825 (1): 1-64, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4825.1.1
03DE092DFFDFD727FF13FD6F2C62D988.text	03DE092DFFDFD727FF13FD6F2C62D988.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Alipes Imhoff 1854	<div><p>(!) Alipes Imhoff, 1854</p><p>Figs 84–88</p><p>Type species. Alipes multicostis Imhoff, 1854 (by monotypy).</p><p>Diagnosis. Median tooth of labrum well developed. Forcipular tooth-plates present, trochantero-prefemur with well-developed process (Fig. 86). Tergites with some (usually five) longitudinal keels (Fig. 87); well-developed spinules (not tubercles, as noted Edgecombe &amp; Bonato 2011) of various sizes arranged along the keels (“spinulated keels”, see above). Space between tergal keels spinulated (not granulated, as noted Edgecombe &amp; Bonato 2011). Sternites lacking both paramedian sutures and longitudinal sulci, sometimes with some (in most species three) shallow depressions. LBS 7 lacking spiracles, the latter with an atrium. Legs with tarsal spur(s). Coxopleural process very short, apically rounded and spineless (Fig. 88). Ultimate legs considerably elongated, prefemur and femur normal, tibia and tarsi strongly flattened forming an oval leaf-shaped structure (Fig. 85), with stridulatory grates on opposite surfaces of tibia and tarsus 1; pretarsus rudimentary or totally reduced. Ultimate prefemur (Fig. 88) lacking both spines and corner spine; in A. appendiculatus Pocock, 1896 and A. calcipes Cook, 1897 prefemur with a median digitiform process attaching close to its base. This process is long in males (fig. 214 in Attems 1930) and rudimentary in females and is similar to that of Parotostigmus males.</p><p>Number of species. 7 (Bonato et al. 2016).</p><p>Sexual dimorphism. Present in two species.</p><p>Remarks. Treated as a genus by Edgecombe &amp; Bonato (2011: 402), Vahtera et al. (2012a: 7, 2012b: 235, 2013: 581), Joshi &amp; Edgecombe (2018: 1318). The most recent morphological accounts on Alipes are Lewis (2001) and Iorio (2003).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03DE092DFFDFD727FF13FD6F2C62D988	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Schileyko, Arkady A.;Vahtera, Varpu;Edgecombe, Gregory D.	Schileyko, Arkady A., Vahtera, Varpu, Edgecombe, Gregory D. (2020): An overview of the extant genera and subgenera of the order Scolopendromorpha (Chilopoda): a new identification key and updated diagnoses. Zootaxa 4825 (1): 1-64, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4825.1.1
03DE092DFFDFD73BFF13FA08287BDD7B.text	03DE092DFFDFD73BFF13FA08287BDD7B.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Ethmostigmus Pocock 1898	<div><p>(!) Ethmostigmus Pocock, 1898</p><p>Figs 101–105</p><p>Type species. Scolopendra trigonopoda Leach, 1817 (by subsequent designation of Attems 1930).</p><p>Diagnosis. Median tooth of labrum well developed. Forcipular tooth-plates present, trochantero-prefemoral processes virtually absent (Fig. 102). Tergites consistently lacking longitudinal keels. Sternites with paramedian sutures and/or sulci both developed to varying degrees (figs 25, 26 in Schileyko &amp; Stoev 2016). LBS 7 with spiracles, spiracles virtually without atrium (Fig. 103). Legs with tarsal spur(s). Coxopleural process (Fig. 105) from moderate (fig. 34 in Schileyko &amp; Stagl) to very long and large (Fig. 104), only short in some Australian species (e.g., E. curtipes Koch, 1983). Ultimate legs of “common” shape (Fig. 101), but in a few species—for example in Ethmostigmus rubripes rubripes (Brandt, 1840) —these legs may be much shortened and broadened (becoming pracrically “pincershaped”) as a result of geographic variability (see Schileyko &amp; Stagl 2004: 120). Prefemur of the ultimate leg with spines plus well-developed corner spine (Figs 101, 105); claw-shaped pretarsus in most species neither elongated nor enlarged, rarely as long as tarsus 2.</p><p>Number of species. 17 (Edgecombe &amp; Bonato 2011), 22 (Bonato et al. 2016), 15 (Joshi &amp; Edgecombe 2018), 19 (Joshi &amp; Edgecombe 2019).</p><p>Sexual dimorphism. Unknown.</p><p>Remarks. Treated as a genus in Edgecombe &amp; Bonato (2011: 402), Vahtera et al. (2012a: 7, 2012b: 235, 2013: 584), Schileyko &amp; Stoev (2016: 258), Joshi &amp; Edgecombe (2018: 1316), Siriwut et al. (2018: 1005), Joshi &amp; Edgecombe (2019: 1). The most recent morphological account on Ethmostigmus is Joshi &amp; Edgecombe (2018).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03DE092DFFDFD73BFF13FA08287BDD7B	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Schileyko, Arkady A.;Vahtera, Varpu;Edgecombe, Gregory D.	Schileyko, Arkady A., Vahtera, Varpu, Edgecombe, Gregory D. (2020): An overview of the extant genera and subgenera of the order Scolopendromorpha (Chilopoda): a new identification key and updated diagnoses. Zootaxa 4825 (1): 1-64, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4825.1.1
03DE092DFFC3D73BFF13FE5729D0D950.text	03DE092DFFC3D73BFF13FE5729D0D950.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rhysida H. C. Wood 1862	<div><p>(!) Rhysida H.C. Wood, 1862</p><p>Figs 106–109</p><p>Type species. Branchiostoma lithobioides Newport, 1845 (by subsequent designation of Attems 1930) .</p><p>Diagnosis. Median tooth of labrum well developed. Forcipular tooth-plates present, trochantero-prefemur with well-developed process (Fig. 106). Tergites never with longitudinal keels (except for median one in a few species). Sternites with incomplete paramedian sutures (in some species much shortened, sometimes also with median and lateral depressions of various sizes/shapes. LBS 7 with spiracles, the latter with atrium (Fig. 108). Legs with tarsal spur(s), legs 1 without prefemoral spur. Coxopleural process (Fig. 109) ranging from short to very long and much enlarged (figs 4F and 9F in Siriwut et al. 2018, respectively), with spines (at least with apical ones). Prefemur of the ultimate leg with spines (Fig. 107), more rarely (for example in R. celeris) without them; pronounced corner spine absent (in some species 1(2) spines at its place, Fig. 107). Ultimate pretarsus well-developed, with accessory spines.</p><p>Number of species. 36 (Joshi et al. 2020).</p><p>Sexual dimorphism. Unknown.</p><p>Remarks. Treated as a genus in Edgecombe &amp; Bonato (2011: 402), Vahtera et al. (2012a: 7, 2012b: 238, 2013: 578), Chagas-Jr (2013: 17), Schileyko (2014: 182), Schileyko &amp; Stoev (2016: 255), Siriwut et al. (2018: 1005); Joshi et al. (2020); the latter work is the most recent account on this genus (see also Remarks to Alluropus below). In 2013 Chagas-Jr synonymized seven species of Rhysida (namely R. caripensis, R. guayanica, R. maritima, R. monaguensis, R. neoesparanta, R. porlamarensis and R. sucupaensis) described by González-Sponga (2002) to R. celeris . Five new species were described from India by Joshi et al. (2020).</p><p>We re-investigated a dozen specimens of R. celeris from Peru (Rc 6685) and Brazil (Rc 7272), R. immarginata (Porat, 1876) from Papua New Guinea (Rc 7091), R. longipes (Newport, 1845) from Cambodia (Rc 7003) and Peru (Rc 6683), R. lithobioides (Newport, 1845) from Sumatra (Rc 7232). All the studied specimens showed a total absence of both a corner spine of the ultimate legs (Fig. 107) and a prefemoral spur on legs 1.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03DE092DFFC3D73BFF13FE5729D0D950	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Schileyko, Arkady A.;Vahtera, Varpu;Edgecombe, Gregory D.	Schileyko, Arkady A., Vahtera, Varpu, Edgecombe, Gregory D. (2020): An overview of the extant genera and subgenera of the order Scolopendromorpha (Chilopoda): a new identification key and updated diagnoses. Zootaxa 4825 (1): 1-64, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4825.1.1
03DE092DFFC3D73EFF13FA412F6ADEB7.text	03DE092DFFC3D73EFF13FA412F6ADEB7.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Alluropus Silvestri 1911	<div><p>(!) Alluropus Silvestri, 1911</p><p>Figs 110–112</p><p>Type species. Alluropus demangei Silvestri, 1911 (by monotypy). This species was synonymized with A. calcaratus (Pocock, 1891) (former Rhysida calcarata) by Siriwut et al. (2018: 1029).</p><p>Diagnosis. Median tooth of labrum well developed. Forcipular tooth-plates present, trochantero-prefemur with well-developed process (Fig. 111). Tergites lacking longitudinal keels. Sternites with paramedian sutures which may be incomplete. LBS 7 with spiracles, the spiracles with atrium (fig. 21J in Siriwut et al. 2018). Legs with tarsal spur(s), legs 1 with prefemoral spur (Fig. 111). Coxopleural process normally developed, with spines (Fig. 110). Prefemur of the ultimate leg with numerous spines ventro-medially and ventro-laterally (not with “a row of shallow tubercles” as written in Edgecombe &amp; Bonato 2011: 402). This prefemur with well-developed corner spine of characteristic shape: long and enlarged in males (Fig. 110) and visibly smaller, comb-like in females (Fig. 112, fig. 22H in Siriwut et al. 2018). Ultimate tarsus 1 in males considerably swollen, with short, blunt dorsodistal projection (Fig. 110) followed by a disproportionately slender tarsus 2; pretarsus well-developed, with accessory spines.</p><p>Number of species. 1.</p><p>Sexual dimorphism. Present.</p><p>Remarks. Treated as a genus in Edgecombe &amp; Bonato (2011: 402), Siriwut et al. (2018: 1005). The latter authors wrote in the Diagnosis of Alluropus (p. 1029): “… leg 1 with prefemoral … spurs. … Ultimate legs with male secondary sexual characters, such as swollen structure of tarsus 1 and dorsomedian projection [= corner spine] on prefemur” and (p. 1032): “The original description of R. calcarata also indicated characteristics of Alluropus, such as … and a prefemoral process on the ultimate legs that has not been reported in most South-East Asian Rhysida such as R. longipes, R. singaporiensis, R. immarginata and R. monticola ”. Based on re-investigation of ZMMU’s material of both Rhysida (see Remarks above) and Alluropus calcaratus (Pocock, 1891) —an adult female ca 30 mm long from Central Laos (Rc 7161), mentioned by Schileyko (2007: 83) as Rhysida calcarata Pocock, 1891 —we confirm these characters as diagnostic for Alluropus . None of the re-studied specimens of Rhysida (from either South-East Asia or the Neotropics, see above) have a prefemoral spur on leg 1 or a corner spine on the ultimate prefemur (Fig. 107). The re-studied specimen of Alluropus calcaratus has a coxopleural process of medium length with apical and subapical + lateral (or posterior coxopleural?) spines (i.e. as in the corresponding pictures of Siriwut et al. 2018), relatively short ultimate legs, the prefemur with spines and a very characteristic comb-like corner spine (figs 22G, 22H of Siriwut et al. 2018). These characters are virtually identical to those of females of A. calcaratus as presented in Siriwut et al. (2018).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03DE092DFFC3D73EFF13FA412F6ADEB7	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Schileyko, Arkady A.;Vahtera, Varpu;Edgecombe, Gregory D.	Schileyko, Arkady A., Vahtera, Varpu, Edgecombe, Gregory D. (2020): An overview of the extant genera and subgenera of the order Scolopendromorpha (Chilopoda): a new identification key and updated diagnoses. Zootaxa 4825 (1): 1-64, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4825.1.1
03DE092DFFC7D73FFF13FC172F00DBEE.text	03DE092DFFC7D73FFF13FC172F00DBEE.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Sterropristini Verhoeff 1937	<div><p>Tribe Sterropristini Verhoeff, 1937</p><p>Synonyms. Sterropristinae Verhoeff, 1937</p><p>Diagnosis. Antenna short or very short (i.e. reaching at most the anterior margin of tergite 3 when reflexed) and tapering (Fig. 122), its basal articles visibly wider than long, flattened and much broadened. Median tooth of labrum small. Forcipular tooth-plates (Figs 120, 121) well developed, their basal sutures form a very characteristic “W”. Trochantero-prefemoral process virtually absent (in Sterropristes violaceus Muadsub and Panha 2012, fig. 10B of Muadsub et al. 2012) or rudimentary, rounded apically (in S. sarasinorum Attems, 1934 and S. metallicus (Verhoeff, 1937), figs 3A and 5B of Muadsub et al. 2012, respectively). Tarsungula unusually (for Otostigminae) short and broade, nearly triangular and very slightly curved (Figs 120, 121); their inner/ventral surface is saw-like, bearing 8– 13 blunt serrations. Tergites lacking longitudinal keels. Sternites with well-developed paramedian sutures (in most specimens complete in the LBS of posterior half of body). LBS 7 with spiracles, the latter with deep, well-developed atrium. Pleuron with intersclerite membrane well visible, without set of longitudinal pleurites anteriorly. Legs with tarsal spur(s). Coxopleuron of varied length but lacking process (Figs 119 and 123, figs 4F, 4F, 5D of Muadsub et al. 2012). Ultimate leg truly “pincer-shaped” (Fig. 119), its prefemur without either spines or corner spine; pretarsus visibly longer than tarsus 2 and lacks accessory spurs; tarsal articles and/or tibia with prominent bulge ventrally.</p><p>Number of subtaxa. 1 genus (“Two species in two genera” sensu Edgecombe &amp; Bonato 2011: 403).</p><p>Sexual dimorphism. Unknown.</p><p>Range. Tomohon, Sulawesi (Indonesia); Penang (Malaysia); Similan and Surin Islands in Andaman Sea (Phangnga Province, South-Western Thailand) .</p><p>Remarks. Treated as a tribe in Edgecombe &amp; Bonato (2011: 403), Muadsub et al. (2012: 36) and Vahtera et al. (2013: 581, 594). But Vahtera et al. (2013: 594) wrote later: “However, a recurring pattern is that most trees depict Sterropristes / Sterropristini nested within Otostigmini (…), in which case recognition of Sterropristini as a tribe … renders Otostigmini paraphyletic”. Nesting of Sterropristes within Otostigmini has been recovered in more recent molecular phylogenies as well (Siriwut et al. 2018; Joshi et al. 2020). We presently retain Sterropristini as a tribe here as the last reviewers (Vahtera et al. 2013) did not formally eliminate this tribe.</p><p>The structure of the labrum of Sterropristini is not detailed in the ventral view of the head of Sterropristes metallicus (fig. 5A in Muadsub et al. 2012).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03DE092DFFC7D73FFF13FC172F00DBEE	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Schileyko, Arkady A.;Vahtera, Varpu;Edgecombe, Gregory D.	Schileyko, Arkady A., Vahtera, Varpu, Edgecombe, Gregory D. (2020): An overview of the extant genera and subgenera of the order Scolopendromorpha (Chilopoda): a new identification key and updated diagnoses. Zootaxa 4825 (1): 1-64, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4825.1.1
03DE092DFFCAD732FF13FF76283DD86D.text	03DE092DFFCAD732FF13FF76283DD86D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Sterropristes Attems 1934	<div><p>Sterropristes Attems, 1934</p><p>Figs 119–123</p><p>Synonyms. Malaccolabis Verhoeff, 1937</p><p>Type species. Sterropristes sarasinorum Attems, 1934 (by monotypy).</p><p>Diagnosis. As for tribe.</p><p>Number of species. 3 (Muadsub et al. 2012).</p><p>Remarks. Treated as a genus in Edgecombe &amp; Bonato (2011: 403), Muadsub et al. (2012: 36), Vahtera et al. (2013: 594), Vahtera &amp; Edgecombe (2014: 2, 7).</p><p>Several “diagnostic” features of Sterropristes mentioned by Muadsub et al. (2012) are also shared with other genera of Otostigminae, an exception being the “saw-like internal margin of the forcipular tarsungula” which serves as the “unique distinguishing character of Sterropristes ” (Muadsub et al. 2012: 36). Vahtera &amp; Edgecombe (2014: 7) also wrote: “a close relationship between Sterropristes and Edentistoma cannot be definitely discounted”. In fact, within Otostigminae only two these genera (plus Digitipes, at least in part; see above) have an unusually small median tooth of the labrum (in Scolopendrinae, also shared with species of Cormocephalus (Campylostigmus); see Edgecombe &amp; Koch 2008, fig. 10e) and very characteristic short and much enlarged ultimate legs (see above), in both cases having dorsal sulci on proximal podomeres (Fig. 116). However they differ sharply from each other by: a. visibly thinned and elongated (in Edentistoma; Fig. 114) vs. much shortened and enlarged (in Sterropristes; Fig. 120) forcipular tarsungula, b. presence (in Edentistoma; Fig. 116) vs. absence of tergal keels, c. spiracles without (in Edentistoma; Fig. 115) vs. with a well-developed atrium (Fig. 119). On the other hand, we also note shared characters in the structure of the forcipular segment of Ethmostigmus and Sterropristes (compare Figs 102 and 121)—both of them have very similar shape of the tooth-plates and lack a well-developed forcipular trochantero-prefemoral process. However, molecular phylogenetics indicates that “monophyly (non-partitioned analyses) versus paraphyly (partitioned analyses) of Sterropristes + Ethmostigmus remains ambiguous” (Siriwut et al. 2018: 1043).</p><p>It should be noted that Bonato et al. (2016) are obviously mistaken for not mentioning S. metallicus as the third valid species of Sterropristes; its validity was confirmed by the molecular study of Siriwut et al. (2018: 1043) who wrote: “the mainland and insular species, S. metallicus and S. violaceus, have been verified as distinct species”.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03DE092DFFCAD732FF13FF76283DD86D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Schileyko, Arkady A.;Vahtera, Varpu;Edgecombe, Gregory D.	Schileyko, Arkady A., Vahtera, Varpu, Edgecombe, Gregory D. (2020): An overview of the extant genera and subgenera of the order Scolopendromorpha (Chilopoda): a new identification key and updated diagnoses. Zootaxa 4825 (1): 1-64, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4825.1.1
