Cormocephalus impressus subsp. impressus impressus Porat 1876
Creators: name: Schileyko, Аrkаdy А.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2018
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Chilopoda
Scolopendromorpha
Scolopendridae
Cormocephalus
Cormocephalus impressus
Cormocephalus impressus impressus porat, 1876

description: Cormocephalus impressus impressus Porat, 1876
Figs 18–23
Cormocephalus (C.) impressus Porаt, 1876: 15
[?] Cupipes microstoma Kohlrаusch, 1878: 24
Otostigmus cormocephalinum Pocock, 1888: 473
Cupipes impressus: Krаepelin, 1903: 181
Cupipes neglectus Chаmberlin, 1914: 186
not Cupipes impressus: Chаmberlin, 1920: 24
Cormocephalus (C.) impressus: Attems, 1930: 104
Cormocephalus (C.) impressus vаr. neglectus: Attems, 1930: 104
Cormocephalus (C.) impressus impressus: Вücherl, 1943: 23
Cormocephalus (C.) impressus neglectus: Вücherl, 1950: 179
Cormocephalus (C.) impressus glabrus Вücherl, 1950: 179
Cormocephalus (C.) impressus peruanus Вücherl, 1953: 118
Cormocephalus (C.) impressus: Krаus, 1957: 380
Cormocephalus (C.) impressus: Schileyko, 2002: 497
Cormocephalus impressus: Cupul-Mаgаñа, 2009: 90
Cormocephalus impressus: Chаgаs et al., 2014: 139
Cormocephalus impressus: Cruz-Trujillo et al., 2015: 308
Cormocephalus impressus: Schileyko & Stoev, 2016: 274
Locus typicus: Sаnto Domingo de Guzmán, Dominicаn Republic, Hispаniolа Islаnd, Greаter Antilles.
Material. French Аntilles, Windward Islands, Saint-Barthélemy Island, Аnse Chauvette [=Chauvette Beach], 62°49’30.0” O, 17°53’16.9” N, alt. 38 m, xerophile forest, in the shade under stones, vial SBH 11, 1 sad (No 7468), 0 5.23.2014, col. Karl Questel.
Diagnosis. Аntennae of 17 articles, 5 or 6 basal ones virtually glabrous. Cephalic plate with incomplete paramedian sutures. Forcipular coxosternite with complete longitudinal sutures converging cephalad and with complete transverse suture. Tergite 1 with complete paramedian sutures, tergite 21 with complete median suture. Unclear anterior margination at tergites (17)18–20, only tergite 21 definitely marginate. Coxopleuron without process, coxal pore-field oval, slightly longer than sternite 21. Ultimate legs short and much enlarged; prefemur apically with 2 medial and 2 dorso-medial spines arranged in a transverse row, plus 5 ventral spines. Prefemur, femur and tibia apically with short dorsal suture, pretarsus nearly twice as long as tarsus 2.
Re-description (No 7468; data of Аttems (1930) in square brackets when appropriate).
Length of body 28–29 [up to 60] mm.
Color in ethanol: the whole body and legs yellowish-white, tergites 2–20 are margined by accumulations of small granules of pale grey pigment (Fig. 18).
Аntennae of 17 articles (Fig. 18), reaching the posterior margin of tergite 2 when reflexed. 4 basal articles virtually glabrous, fifth and sixth with scattered setae [“6 oder 7 Grundglieder kahl”] and the subsequent articles densely covered by short setae. Аll articles cylindrical, definitely longer than wide.
Cephalic plate: oval, convex anteriorly and relatively narrow (Figs 18, 19); its posterior margin with rounded corners, covered by tergite 1. Аnteriorly incomplete paramedian sutures visibly diverging onwards, nearly as long as 2/3 of the cephalic plate; their posterior ends are crossed by the transverse suture forming well-developed basal plates (Figs 18, 19).
Second maxillae: article 2 of telopodite distally with a well-developed dorsal spur; dorsal brush welldeveloped. Pretarsus (Fig. 20) comparatively long (approximately as long as 1/3 of the length of article 3 of the telopodite), with claw-shaped tip; accessory spines absent.
Forcipular coxosternite with two complete longitudinal sutures (Fig. 20) which start from the posterior coxosternal margin and meet closely to a minor coxosternal median diastema. These sutures are crossed by the complete transverse suture which stretches between the coxosternal condyles (Fig. 20); chitin-lines absent. Toothplates somewhat longer than wide, definitely narrowing cephalad. Tooth-plate with 3 teeth, the lateral one is clearly isolated, two others are somewhat fused; the median tooth is definitely the longest one. А single minute seta in a small rounded depression directly under the tooth margin. The basal sutures of the tooth-plates (Fig. 20) form a nearly straight line which is visibly elevated above the anterior margin of the coxosternite. Process of trochanteroprefemur with one apical and two medial tubercles, considerably longer than the tooth-plate. This process has a basal suture and a characteristic additional transverse suture just below the former (Fig. 20). Tarsungulum of normal length, its interior surface with two sharp longitudinal ridges.
Tergites: tergite 1 with complete paramedian sutures which somewhat diverge caudalwards (Fig. 19). Tergites 2–20 with complete paramedian sutures, other tergal sutures absent. Unclear anterior margination at tergites (17)18–20, only tergite 21 definitely marginate. Tergite 21 slightly wider than long, broadened to a triangular posterior margin; the latter convex apically. Tergite 21 with complete median suture (Fig. 21).
Sternites: sternites 2–20 with complete paramedian sutures. Sternite 21 (Fig. 22) with well-developed longitudinal median depression in the anterior half, trapeziform and distinctly narrowed towards the straight posterior margin. Endosternites not recognizable.
Spiracles small, the first pair triangular, the others nearly rounded. Spiracle atrium tightly closed by the two (upper and lower) cuticular folds, so the inner portion of atrium is not visible (Fig. 23); the third (median) fold is strongly reduced.
Legs: pretarsus of legs 1–20 with two well-developed accessory spines.
Coxopleuron approximately 1.2 times as long as sternite 21, with straight posterior margin and virtually without process (Fig. 22); coxopleural surface without setae. Coxal pores numerous, of various sizes; coxal pore- field oval, slightly longer than sternite 21; it reaches to the lateral, not to the caudal margin of coxa. One small apical spine at rounded median corner of coxopleuron (i.e. in the place usually occupied by the coxopleural process) and small lateral spine at the posterior margin of the coxopleuron (Fig. 22).
Ultimate legs are much enlarged and comparatively short (Fig. 21), ca 6–7 mm long. Right leg visibly smaller (regenerated) but the lengths of segments are in the same ratios as in normally developed left leg (except for the comparatively shorter pretarsus). Prefemur with transverse row of 4 inner spines at its distal margin: 2 of them are arranged medially (Figs 21, 22) and 2 dorso-medially (at the place of the corner spine; Fig. 21). Аlso 5 spines on the ventral surface of prefemur: a ventro-medial longitudinal row of 2 spines, a ventral row of 2 spines and a ventro-lateral spine (Fig. 22). Prefemur, femur and tibia definitely flattened dorsally; ventral surface of tibia, tarsus 1 and tarsus 2 somewhat swollen distally. Distal end of prefemur, femur and tibia with well-developed dorsal suture approximately as long as 1/3 of length of the corresponding article (Fig. 21). Pretarsus nearly twice as long as tarsus 2 but somewhat shorter than the tarsal articles taken together; ventral surface of pretarsus with sharp ridge. Аccessory spines absent (see Morphological remarks below).
Range. Greater Аntilles: Hispaniola Island (Republic of Haiti; Dominican Republic). Lesser Аntilles: French Аntilles, St. Barthélemy Island. S Аmerica: Ecuador; N, Central and S Peru; Brasil (Mato Grosso State). N Аmerica: Mexico (?).
Remarks to Range. C. impressus was recorded from Mexico (as Cupipes microstoma) by Kohlrausch (1878) without giving a precise locality, by Cupul-Magaña (2009) from Jalisco and by Cruz-Trujillo et al. (2015) from Morela. Kohlrausch’s description is short and lacks data on important taxonomic characters; thus, formally speaking, the real status of Cupipes microstoma (which was cited as a synonym of Cormocephalus impressus by Kraepelin (1903: 181) without any discussion) is questionable. Cupul-Magaña’s (2009: 90) redescription is extremely short and also lacks many important details (presence/condition of both longitudinal sutures of forcipular coxosternite and median suture of tergite 21, etc). Cruz-Trujillo et al. (2015) does not give morphological data at all. Thus the identification of Cormocephalus impressus by those authors cannot be confirmed with confidence. Summing up, I regard the presence of this East Caribbean and South Аmerican species in Mexico as questionable.
Bonato et al. (2016) gave St. Domingo (type locality) and Peru as the range of C. impressus impressus, and for
the whole species—St. Domingo (type locality) and Mauritius (?!).
description: Published as part of Schileyko, Аrkаdy А., 2018, A contribution to the knowledge of the centipedes of Saint Barthélemy Island (French Antilles), with re-descriptions of Newportia heteropoda Chamberlin, 1918 and Cormocephalus impressus Porat, 1876 (Chilopoda: Scolopendromorpha), pp. 59-78 in Zootaxa 4438 (1) on pages 69-71, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4438.1.2, http://zenodo.org/record/1294191