Campodea (Campodea) majorica subsp. sicula Conde 1957
Creators: name: Sendra, Alberto
name: Nicolosi, Giuseppe
name: Amore, Elena
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2019
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Entognatha
Diplura
Campodeidae
Campodea
Campodea majorica
Campodea (campodea) majorica sicula condé, 1957

description: Campodea (Campodea) majorica sicula Condé, 1957
Figs. 24–48, Table 3
Studied material. 5 females, 2 males and 11 unsexed specimens, Abisso del Gatto, Cefalú, Palermo, Sicily, Italy, 10 June 2017, Giuseppe Nicolosi leg; 2 ♀♀, 1 juvenile, Abisso della Pietra Selvaggia, Palermo, Sicily, Italy, 17 November 2018. Giuseppe Nicolosi leg.
Additions to original description. Body length 6.4–8.6 mm (females), 5.2–5.3 mm (males); antennae length similar to body length with 44 and 46 antennomeres; medial antennomeres two times longer than wide. Epicuticle of dorsal sclerites of the body and legs covered with microdenticles visible with optical microscopy in addition to a reticulated surface only observed at high magnifications (Figs. 30–36, 42); ventral sclerites smooth under optical microscope but surface reticulated at high magnifications (Figs. 43, 45); rosette gland formations present along scattered on the body (Fig. 32). Dorsal sclerites of body with abundant short, slightly thickened, smooth clothing setae (Figs. 30–36); ventral sclerites with longer and thinner clothing setae (Fig. 43).
Cupuliform organ occupying 1/8 of the total length of the apical antennomere with about 8 complex olfactory chemoreceptors. Each chemoreceptor is made up of both loosely and tightly packed, multi-perforated folds forming a concentric cupuliform structure with a rim edge. The rim and folds are of varied height and there is a characteristic raised central area, the central pore. All the chemoreceptors are joined by being held within individual cells of a single form (Figs. 24–26). Distal and central antennomeres with three whorls of smooth macrosetae smooth or with one or two distal barbs, up to three whorls of smooth setae, and a single distal whorl of 10–12 gouge sensilla 18–22 µm long. Apical antennomere with similar setal arrangement (Figs. 27–29). Proximal antennomeres with typical bothriotricha; third antennomere with small subcylindrical ventral sensillum.
Head subtrapezoidal, slightly protuberant on lateral posterior angles. Simple frontal process with three frontal macrosetae and three thicker, longer and well barbed macrosetae along each side of the line of insertion distinguishable.
Thoracic macrosetal distribution (Figs. 30–36): 3+3 ma, la, lp macrosetae on pronotum and mesonotum, and 1+1 ma on metanotum; ma and la macrosetae well differentiated from clothing setae, slightly thick and with moderately thick barbs; lp macrosetae long with thin, short barbs along their entire length. Marginal setae well differentiated from clothing setae, thick and with thick barbs. Urotergal macrosetal length, thickness and number variable, 1+1 la and 1+1, 0+1 or 0+0 lp in sixth urotergite (Figs. 46–48).
Legs elongate (Fig. 37), metathoracic legs reaching the abdominal segments 8 or 9; tibia slightly longer than femur and tarsus, femur and tarsus + pretarsus of similar length (Table 3). Calcars with barbs of variable length beginning near their base (Fig. 40). Tibiae I–III each with one short, smooth ventral macroseta sometimes possessing one minute distal barb (Fig. 41). Each tarsus with three smooth, subapical macrosetae, a double ventral row of thicker, weakly barbed ventral setae, and a few setiform sensilla (Fig. 39). Subequal slightly curved claws subequal, with setiform lateral processes with a slight apical laminar expansion (Fig. 38).
cercal primary articles.
Urosternal macrosetae with a few long distal barbs; 6+6 macrosetae on first urosternite (Fig. 43), 4+4 on second to seventh urosternites and 1+1 on eighth urosternite. Stylus setae smooth with two long teeth on apical seta (Fig. 46). Cerci 11.5 mm long on 7.2-mm female; cercal base divided in three followed by 14 primary articles (Table 3). Proximal latero-internal macrosetae with 0–1 distal barbs in the preserved cerci of Abisso del Gatto specimens and with 3–8 barbs in Abisso della Pietra Selvaggia specimens.
Male urosternite I with a posterior field of glandular g 1 setae, and subtrapezoidal appendages with a distal field of glandular a 1 setae. Female subcylindrical appendages with glandular a 1 setae (Figs. 43, 44).
Remarks. Campodea (Campodea) majorica sicula belongs to a distinct monophyletic group closely related to the soil-dwelling species C. (C.) grassi Silvestri 1912 living in the Western Mediterranean region from the Iberian to the Italian Peninsulas, southern France, northern Algeria, and a few locations in Corsica, Pontine Islands, Sardinia and Sicily (Condé 1947a, 1947 b, 1955, 1978; Condé & Mathieu 1957; Sendra 1989; Sendra & Jiménez 1986; Sendra & Moreno 2004; Sendra et al. 2017; Silvestri 1912, 1932). Condé (1955) suggested that this monophyletic group was composed of three others already described species and six subspecies (C. majorica sicula included), all inhabiting the deep subterranean spaces and found in caves. They occupy the main Western Mediterranean Islands: Corsica (Campodea (Campodea) cyrnea cyrnea Condé 1946; Campodea (Campodea) cyrnea alethae Condé 1948; Campodea (Campodea) cyrnea virgolae Condé 1948 and Campodea (Campodea) blandinae blandinae Condé 1948), Mallorca (Campodea (Campodea) majorica majorica Condé 1955 and Campodea (Campodea) majorica interjecta Condé 1955), Sardinia (Campodea (Campodea) blandinae ichnusa Condé 1957) and Sicily (C. (C.) majorica sicula),; in addition to an inland subspecies from the extreme east of the Pre-Baetic Mountains in the Iberian Peninsula (Campodea (Campodea) majorica valentina Sendra & Moreno 2004) (Condé 1946 b, 1948, 1955, 1957; Marletta et al. 2015; Sendra & Moreno 2004). The similarities among the taxa of the C. (C.) grassi monophyletic group are based on the pattern of macroseta distribution, their robust dorsal clothing setae, marginal setae and macrosetae, and the micro-denticles on the cuticle surface. The species and subspecies of this group are difficult to separate in spite of their isolated environments and insular distributions. All taxonomic features suggested in the descriptions of the taxa should be reviewed. In fact, the variability observed in the shape of the dorsal thoracic and abdominal macrosetae and in the presence or absence of macrosetae on the sixth urotergite, seen in the studied material of C. (C.) majorica sicula, cast doubt on the validity of the species and subspecies of this monophyletic group.
Scanning electron microscopy observations were used in this study for better examination of taxonomic features, and for future comparation with other taxa. In the future it will be valuable to use molecular data to better understand the current taxa separation and their validity.
description: Published as part of Sendra, Alberto, Nicolosi, Giuseppe & Amore, Elena, 2019, Subterranean Campodeidae fauna from Sicily (Diplura): its biogeographical interest with the description of a new species of Plusiocampa, pp. 297-317 in Zootaxa 4679 (2) on pages 304-309, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4679.2.5, http://zenodo.org/record/3772555