Lepidonella flava
Creators: name: Nguyen, Minh
name: Soto-Adames, Felipe N.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2018
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Entognatha
Collembola
Paronellidae
Lepidonella
Lepidonella flava

description: Lepidonella flava (Carpenter, 1916)
Microparonella flava Carpenter, 1916: 43-44, figs 59-62; key (Seychelles). — Mitra 2002a: 67, 70 (generic status).
Paronella flava – Handschin 1928: 23. — Yoshii 1961: 195 (suggestion it may belong in Callyntrura Börner, 1906).
Callyntrura (Microparonella) flava – Jacquemart 1980: 8-9, fig. 3 (descriptive notes).
Lepidonella flava Deharveng & Bedos 1995: 22, 23 (compared to Lepidonella lecongkieti Deharveng & Bedos, 1995). — Soto- Adames & Bellini 2015: 332 (compared to Lepidonella zepellinii Soto-Adames & Bellini, 2015).
TYPE LOCALITY. — Mahé, Fôret noire, Seychelles.
DISTRIBUTION. — Seychelles.
REMARKS
The generic assignment of this species is unclear. Carpenter (1916) originally placed the species in his newly described Microparonella. Handschin (1928) transferred M. flava to Paronella without providing a justification. Yoshii (1961), suggested the species could belong in Callyntrura, but did not propose a formal change (Yoshii could have confused M. flava
Carpenter, 1916 with Paronella flava Carpenter, 1917). In the Index to Collembola, Salmon (1964) transferred M. flava back to Paronella, under the assumption that Microparonella was a junior synonym of Paronella. Salmon (1964) noticed the homonymy with P. flava Carpenter, 1917 and renamed P. flava (Carpenter, 1916) as P. seychelliensis. Jacquemart (1980) concurred with Yoshii (1961) and formally proposed the combination Callyntrura (Microparonella) flava, even though the drawings he provides show a mucro similar to that in Paronellini or Bromacanthini rather than Callyntrurini.
Deharveng & Bedos (1995) made it clear that M. caerulea Carpenter, 1916, the Type species of Microparonella, is a typical Troglopedetes, but at the same time pointed out that most species assigned to Microparonella do not belong in Troglopedetes. Deharveng & Bedos (1995) transferred most Microparonella to Lepidonella, including M. flava. Mitra (2002a) redescribed M. caerulea based on one syntype, concluded that Microparonella was a valid genus and retained the original combination M. flava. Unfortunately, the syntype studied by Mitra was missing antennal segments 2-4 and he was unaware of the presence of a subdivision on the 4 th antennal segment, as pointed out by Deharveng & Bedos (1995). In any case, the redefinition of Microparonella proposed by Mitra (2002a) is so general that it differs from the diagnosis of Trogolaphysa (sensu Thibaud & Najt 1988 or Soto-Adames 2015) only in that Microparonella has smooth instead of striated or denticulate scales. Soto-Adames & Bellini (2015) accepted Deharveng & Bedos’ (1995) opinion on the status of M. flava. Although L. flava was cited in the diagnosis of L. zeppelinii Soto-Adames & Bellini, 2015, the species was inadvertently excluded from the key to Lepidonella of the World.
The original drawings of Carpenter (1916: plate 17, fig. 62), as well as the drawing by Jacquemart (1980) suggest this is either a Lepidonella or a Trogolaphysa with a 4-5 toothed, rectangular mucro. The few characters of the chaetotaxy described for the species are mostly ambiguous with respect to generic placement. Jacquemart’s (1980) illustration of the dorsal head chaetotaxy is limited to macrochaetae, whereas the distinguishing characters between Lepidonella and Trogolaphysa are found in the distribution of microchaetae (Soto-Adames et al. 2014; Soto-Adames & Bellini 2015). The absence of mesothoracic macrochaetae would suggest affinities to Lepidonella (some Lepidonella, such as L. zeppelini and L. marimuti Soto-Adames & Bellini, 2015, carry mesothoracic macrochaetae, but whereas in Paronellini they are clustered near the pseudopore, in Lepidonella they are clearly close to the posterior margin of the segment). However, mesothoracic macrochaetae in Trogolaphysa are sometimes small and easily overlooked, especially if the specimens are old and opaque. The unusual distribution of bothriotricha (one on Abd. 2, three lateral and no inner on Abd. 3, and one on Abd. 4) illustrated by Jacquemart (1980), suggests the he might have missed the small sockets of mesothoracic macrochaetae. Most (all?) Paronellini have 4 th abdominal segment element B6 (in the sense of Soto-Adames 2015) modified into a meso-, or small macrochaeta inserted near element B5, whereas in Lepidonella, elements B5 and B6 are well separated, as in Lepidocyrtinae. Jacquemart’s (1980) illustration of the 4 th abdominal segment shows that B5 and B6 are well separated and the organization of the inner macrochaetae is similar to L. zeppellini rather than to Paronellini. Based on this last character we retain this species in Lepidonella.
The diagnosis of this species is not well established, in part due to the morphological variation reported in the literature. The illustrations of the claw and mucro provided by Jacquemart (1980) differ from the original figures in Carpenter (1916): Carpenter shows a claw with basal teeth apparently subequal, and shorter than the unpaired tooth (Fig. 5E), whereas in Jacquemart one basal tooth is longer than the other and the longest of the pair is clearly longer than the unpaired tooth; in Carpenter’s figure the mucro has 5 teeth and in Jacquemart it has four. Otherwise, it is probably easier to identify this species as the single unmarked (or weakly marked) yellow Lepidonella collected in the Seychelles.
description: Published as part of Nguyen, Minh & Soto-Adames, Felipe N., 2018, Annotated checklist of Afrotropical Trogolaphysa Mills, 1938 (Hexapoda: Collembola: Paronellidae) and description of a new species from Madagascar, pp. 179-196 in Zoosystema 40 (10) on pages 192-194, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2018v40a10, http://zenodo.org/record/3738229