02439nas a2200133 4500008004100000022004600041245004300087210003900130260006400169300001200233520200200245100001902247856003902266 2019 eng d a978-952-11-4973-3, ISBN 978-952-11-4974-000aTuhatjalkaiset - Myriapods - Myriapoda0 aTuhatjalkaiset Myriapods Myriapoda aHelsinkibYmpäristöministeriö & Suomen ympäristökeskus a340-3433 a

Viittausohje, kun viitataan yksittäiseen Punaisen listan lukuun: Vahtera, V. 2019. Tuhatjalkaiset. Julk.: Hyvärinen, E., Juslén, A., Kemppainen, E., Uddström, A. & Liukko, U.-M. (toim.) 2019. Suomen lajien uhanalaisuus – Punainen kirja 2019. Ympäristöministeriö & Suomen ympäristökeskus. Helsinki. S. 340-343. http://hdl.handle.net/10138/299501

Reference of a separate chapter of the Red List: Vahtera, V. 2019. Myriapods. In: Hyvärinen, E., Juslén, A., Kemppainen, E., Uddström, A. & Liukko, U.-M. (eds.) 2019. The 2019 Red List of Finnish Species. Ministry of the Environment & Finnish Environment Institute. Helsinki. P. 340-343. http://hdl.handle.net/10138/299501

Summary: Myriapoda are a diverse group of terrestrial arthropods, some of which are herbivores, some predators and some decomposers. There are four classes of Myriapoda: centipedes (Chilopoda), millipedes (Diplopoda), pauropods (Pauropoda), and symphylans (Symphyla). In Finland, a total of 63 species have been found: 21 centipede, 28 millipede, eight pauropod, and six symphylan species. In total, there are ten red-listed species: the critically endangered (CR) Geophilus carpophagus, which was classified as Regionally Extinct (RE) in the two previous assessments, and the Near Threatened (NT) species G. electricus, G. truncorum and Julus scanicus. These species only have one known locality each, and no new observations have been made of the three Near Threatened (NT) species for a long time. Six species have been categorised as Data Deficient (DD). Many species were classified as Not Evaluated (NE) due to insufficient information on their occurrence. While no monitoring of Myriapoda has been organised in Finland, the information on the spread of the species in this country could be updated by organising a monitoring study of a few years in duration.

1 aVahtera, Varpu uhttp://hdl.handle.net/10138/29950102589nas a2200181 4500008004100000022001400041245013500055210006900190260001500259300000900274520195400283100002502237700001902262700002102281700002702302700002002329856005802349 2020 eng d a0748-300700aPhylogeny of Lithobiidae Newport, 1844, with emphasis on the megadiverse genus Lithobius Leach, 1814 (Myriapoda, Chilopoda)0 aPhylogeny of Lithobiidae Newport 1844 with emphasis on the megad c04/11/2020 a1-233 a

Phylogenetic analyses based on molecular and morphological data were conducted to shed light on relationships within the mostly Palaearctic/Oriental centipede family Lithobiidae, with a particular focus on the Palaearctic genus Lithobius Leach, 1814 (Lithobiidae, Lithobiomorpha), which contains >500 species and subspecies. Previous studies based on morphological data resolved Lithobius as nonmonophyletic, but molecular‐based phylogenetic analyses have until now sampled few species. To elucidate species inter‐relationships of the genus, test the validity of its classification into subgenera, and infer its relationships with other Lithobiidae, we obtained molecular data (nuclear markers: 18S rRNA, 28S rRNA; mitochondrial markers: 16S rRNA, COI) and 61 morphological characters for 44 species of Lithobius representing four of its eight subgenera and nine other representatives of Lithobiidae. The data were analyzed phylogenetically using maximum‐likelihood, parsimony and Bayesian inference. This study suggests that (i) a close relationship between L. giganteus and the pterygotergine Disphaerobius loricatus highlighted in recent morphological analyses is also strongly supported by molecular data, and Pterygoterginae is formally synonymized with Lithobiinae; (ii) the Oriental/Australian genus Australobius is consistently resolved as sister group to all other sampled Lithobiidae by the molecular and combined data; (iii) the subfamily Ethopolyinae may be paraphyletic; (iv) the genus Lithobius is nonmonophyletic; (v) the subgenera Lithobius, Sigibius and Monotarsobius are nonmonophyletic and should not be used in future taxonomic studies; and (vi) there are instances of cryptic species and cases in which subspecies should be elevated to full species status, as identified for some European taxa within Lithobius.

1 aGanske, Anne‐Sarah1 aVahtera, Varpu1 aDányi, László1 aEdgecombe, Gregory, D.1 aAkkari, Nesrine uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cla.12431