Scolopendra robusta, Kraepelin, 1903: 238 - 239

Shelley, Rowland M., 2006, A chronological catalog of the New World species of Scolopendra L., 1758 (Chilopoda: Scolopendromorpha: Scolopendridae), Zootaxa 1253 (1), pp. 1-50 : 26

robusta Kraepelin, 1903:238–239 .

Holotype: holotype not known to exist, not present in the original repository, the Musée Zoologique de Strasbourg, France ( Kraepelin 1903); paratype ( ZMUH [ Weidner 1960], examined); type locality: Monterey , Nuevo León, Mexico. The paratype, from an unspecified site in Colombia, is a juvenile of S. gigantea L., 1758, which does not occur at or near Monterey ( Shelley & Kiser 2000) .

Original rank: species. Current rank and status: valid species, by present reelevation. Attems (1930) and Bücherl (1942 a) considered S. robusta as a full species.

Anatomical illustrations: none.

Distribution: type locality; as the paratype cannot be conspecific with the former holotype, I delete Colombia from the distribution. Maps: none.

Remarks: Sandefer (1998) unintentionally reduced S. robusta to subspecific status under S. gigantea in a popularized booklet on centipede husbandry. It was merely a guess as evidenced by the statement, “Perhaps S. robusta is nothing more than a subspecies of S. gigantea and will be listed as Scolopendra gigantea robusta throughout this publication and until future studies indicate differently.” The document was printed so as to assure obtainable and identical copies, and it lacked a disclaimer that it was not issued for public and permanent scientific record (Article 8.2 of the Code). Consequently, I believe this booklet satisfies Article 8.1 of the “Code” such that the trinomial Scolopendra gigantea robusta constituted an official elevation in rank even though unintentional. Scolopendra gigantea does not occur north of Colombia on the continental land mass ( Shelley & Kiser 2000), and there is no scientific basis to link it with S. robusta . I therefore return S. robusta to full specific status, where it was recognized by Bücherl (1939, 1942 a). I have examined the paratype twice, but because it is a juvenile, anatomical features are not fully developed. The specimen has an anterior transverse sulcus on T1 and small flanges on the telopodal articles of the second maxillae, thus conforming to S. heros Girard, 1853 , a plausible inhabitant of Monterey; however, it differs from S. heros in having small spines dorsally on the ambulatory prefemora. An adult topotype, to be designated the neotype, is needed from the vicinity of Monterey to determine whether S. robusta is a valid species or a synonym of an older name. It was omitted by Bücherl (1974)