Gnomognathus interfectus ( Carl, 1941 )

Sudhakaran, Nikhila & Kuruvila, Manju Elizabeth, 2025, A new millipede species of the genus Gnomognathus Attems, 1942 (Diplopoda, Spirostreptida, Harpagophoridae) from South India, Zootaxa 5659 (3), pp. 335-356 : 342-344

publication ID

https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5659.3.2

publication LSID

lsid:zoobank.org:pub:7BF6244A-CF30-4717-B978-A3236FF0C57D

DOI

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15823307

persistent identifier

https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CD3A4F-FFDD-6E18-FF1B-FB68FC21F85B

treatment provided by

Plazi

scientific name

Gnomognathus interfectus ( Carl, 1941 )
status

 

Gnomognathus interfectus ( Carl, 1941) View in CoL

Figs 5 View FIGURE 5 , 6 View FIGURE 6 , 9D View FIGURE 9

Material examined. 1 male, Paniyeli Poru (10°10.011’N, 76°36.360’E), Ernakulam , Kerala, 11 December 2024 GoogleMaps ; 1 female, Thommankuthu (09°57.381’N, 76°50.065’E), Idukki , Kerala, 6 December 2024 GoogleMaps ; 1 female, Mulamkuzhy (10°11.090’N, 76°31.965’E), Ernakulam , Kerala, 18 December 2024 GoogleMaps ; hand-collected by Nikhila Sudhakaran (RDZ-ACP-SS207).

Diagnosis. The gonopods of G. interfectus ( Figs 5 View FIGURE 5 , 6 View FIGURE 6 , 9D View FIGURE 9 ) are most similar to those of G. macracanthus Form B ( Fig. 9C View FIGURE 9 ) in that the anterior coxal fold (AC) of both species is with a hook-like mesal process (mp) and backwardbent antero-lateral process (alp); telopodite without femoral spine, with strong tibial spines (ts) on a projection and apical part branched and lobed with additional spines but G. interfectus differs from Form B by the broad, platelike AC; AC with a slightly twisted and backward-curved hook-like mp, a narrow and elongated alp, and without any additional processes on the lateral margin; telopodite with three short tibial spines (ts) on a hemispherical projection; palette (pa) broad and with small additional spines (as) (in G. macracanthus Form B mesal process is strong, lamellate, and hook-like, and the antero-lateral process appears short; telopodite with two tibial spines on an elbow-shaped projection, palette narrow and tapering, and additional spines longer and placed on a bulge on the apical part close to the palette). Species with a diameter ≤ 2 mm.

Descriptive notes (male). Overall color in alcohol dark grey with golden yellow, dorsally with a dull orange diffused line. Length ca. 29 mm, width ca. 1.5 mm, body rings 54 podous + telson. Five supralabral foveolae. Mandibular stipites without hook-like ends. Legs without longitudinal depressions on prefemur and femur. Weak pads on postfemur and tibia restricted to legs towards the anterior end. Preanal process curved downward and pointed.

Gonocoxite very similar to the illustrations of Carl (1941). AC with three processes: mp hook-like, curved backward with a slight twist, paramedian process (pp) with longitudinal triangular ridge (tr) on the posterior surface, and alp narrow, elongated, and bent backward. PC with triangular postero-lateral process (plp) and baso-lateral process (blpPC) ( Figs 5A, B View FIGURE 5 , 6 View FIGURE 6 , 9D View FIGURE 9 ).

Telopodite shows some variations from the illustrations of Carl (1941). Free part of the telopodite short, transparent, and expanded distally; three ts, one long and two short, placed inside a groove on the margin of a hemispherical projection.Apical part of telopodite split into two branches: pa with a reduced number of xyrochaetae (11) and as (2), palette continuous with the hemispherical projection; the second branch consists of two lamellate lobes (ll), almost equally sized, joined along their length, and parallel to each other. The ll adjacent to pa with a dense covering of fine setae and translucent, spine-like marginal projections (also with setae) ( Figs 5C, D View FIGURE 5 , 6 View FIGURE 6 ).

Descriptive notes (female). Length ca. 30–34 mm, width ca. 1.5–2 mm, body rings 51–52 podous rings + telson.

Notes. A transparent region is present on the anterior coxal fold.

Remarks. The main difference from the original illustration is the presence of lamellate lobes and the setae and spine-like projections on one of them. But this may be a detail that Carl (1941) could have overlooked, as the transparent nature of the lobes makes them difficult to distinguish ( Fig. 6 View FIGURE 6 ).

Darwin Core Archive (for parent article) View in SIBiLS Plain XML RDF