01666nas a2200157 4500008004100000022002500041245008600066210006900152260001500221300000900236490000800245520102400253100002201277700002401299856018501323 2021 eng d a0008-347X, 1918-324000aThe biota of Canada: checklist of the centipedes of Canada (Myriapoda: Chilopoda)0 abiota of Canada checklist of the centipedes of Canada Myriapoda  c31/12/2021 a1-120 v1543 a

The centipede fauna of Canada is reviewed based on information available in the literature and on examination of some material, and provincial and territorial distributions are provided. About 53 species are known from Canada, representing four orders: Scutigeromorpha (1), Scolopendromorpha (5), Geophilomorpha (19), and Lithobiomorpha (28). British Columbia has the most recorded species (23), followed by Ontario (17) and Newfoundland and Labrador (12). Arctogeophilus glacialis (Attems) and Alaskobius adlatus Chamberlin are newly reported from Canada (Northwest Territories), Schendyla nemorensis (Koch) is newly reported from Ontario, and Lithobius forficatus (Linnaeus) is recorded for the first time from New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. Arctogeophilus melanonotus (Wood) is removed from the list of Canadian species.

1 aLangor, David, W.1 aLangor, Stephen, D. uhttps://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/canadian-entomologist/article/abs/biota-of-canada-checklist-of-the-centipedes-of-canada-myriapoda-chilopoda/EDF1261C878100D1A7AAFC3DA3671C1003460nas a2200277 4500008004100000022002500041245012900066210007100195260001500266300001000281490000700291520257600298653001402874653001802888653001702906653001902923653001002942653001302952653001202965653002202977653002002999100002703019700003803046700002903084856006903113 2019 eng d a1405-4094, 2007-913300aCiempiés de Sinaloa, México (Myriapoda: Chilopoda): nuevos registros de especies y ampliación de su distribución estatal0 aCiempiés de Sinaloa México Myriapoda Chilopoda nuevos registros  c25/07/2019 a79-850 v263 a

Resumen: Se han registrado siete especies y una subespecie de ciempiés en Sinaloa. El estudio de nuevo material, recolectado de 2016 a 2018, permitió identificar 12 especies de ciempiés, de las cuales ocho representan nuevos registros estatales. Las otras cuatro especies, previamente documentadas para el estado, son registradas en nuevas localidades. Presentamos una lista con los nuevos registros para el estado de Dendrothereua linceci (Wood, 1867), Scolopendra morsitants Linnaeus, 1758, Newportia quadrimeropus (Shelley & Mercurio, 2005), N. stolli (Pocock, 1896), Pachymerium ferrugineum (Koch, 1835), Mecistocephalus guildingii Newport, 1843, Notiphilides maximiliani (Humbert & Saussure, 1870) y Orphnaeus brevilabiatus (Newport,1845), así como nuevos registros de localidades para Arthrorhabdus pygmaeus (Pocock, 1895), S. polymorpha Wood, 1861, S. viridis Say, 1821 y Rhysida longipes (Newport, 1845). La lista actualizada de especies de ciempiés para Sinaloa es de 15 especies y una subespecie. En México, el estado está clasificado octavo en riqueza de ciempiés.

Centipedes of Sinaloa, Mexico (Myriapoda: Chilopoda): new species records and expansion of its regional distribution

Abstract: Seven species and one subspecies of centipedes have been recorded in Sinaloa. The study of new specimens, collected from 2016 to 2018, identified 12 centipedes species, eigth of them are new state records. The other four species, previously recorded in the state, were registered in new localities. We present a list with the new state records of Dendrothereua linceci (Wood, 1867), Scolopendra morsitants Linnaeus, 1758, Newportia quadrimeropus (Shelley & Mercurio, 2005), N. stolli (Pocock, 1896), Pachymerium ferrugineum (Koch, 1835), Mecistocephalus guildingii Newport, 1843, Notiphilides maximiliani (Humbert & Saussure, 1870) and Orphnaeus brevilabiatus (Newport,1845), and new localities records from Arthrorhabdus pygmaeus (Pocock, 1895), S. polymorpha Wood, 1861, S. viridis Say, 1821 and Rhysida longipes (Newport, 1845). The current checklist of the Sinaloa state centipedes includes 15 species and one subspecies. In Mexico, the state is ranked eigth in centipedes richness.

10achecklist10adistribución10adistribution10aGeophilomorpha10alista10arichness10ariqueza10aScolopendromorpha10aScutigeromorpha1 aLópez-Bonel, Fernando1 aÁvila-Gaxiola, Claudia, Patricia1 aCupul-Magaña, Fabio, G. uhttp://148.202.248.171/dugesiana/index.php/DUG/article/view/707301475nas a2200265 4500008004100000022001400041245006000055210005800115260001500173300001200188490000600200520077600206653001400982653001800996653001501014653001001029653001201039653001801051653001201069653001101081653001301092653001601105100002101121856006701142 2019 eng d a2624-282600aBurmese (Myanmar) amber checklist and bibliography 20180 aBurmese Myanmar amber checklist and bibliography 2018 c28/02/2019 a22–840 v23 a

A list of all known taxa described or recorded from Burmese amber from the published literature up to the end of 2018 is given, along with a comprehensive bibliography. The history of the study of inclusions is summarised, and demonstrates that the number of species has risen exponentially over the past two decades. The first three species were named in 1916 and by the end of 1920 a total of 42 species had been named by T.D.A. Cockerell. Only three more species were named by 1999 though by the end of 2018 the total had risen to an incredible 1,192 species, of which over half were named in the past three years. Some 320 species were named in 2018, the highest number described from one type of amber in any one year in the entire history of amber studies.

10aArachnids10aBurmese amber10aCretaceous10afungi10ainsects10ainvertebrates10aMyanmar10aplants10aprotists10avertebrates1 aRoss, Andrew, J. uhttps://www.mapress.com/pe/article/view/palaeoentomology.2.1.501550nas a2200145 4500008004100000022001400041245009200055210006900147260001500216300001000231490000700241520102500248100002401273856010701297 2020 eng d a2513-944400aMyriapod Trivia - Curiosities of British Natural History & The Rabbit and the Centipede0 aMyriapod Trivia Curiosities of British Natural History The Rabbi c03/04/2020 a95-970 v323 a

Over the years with an interest in the more formal study of myriapods, especially centipedes, I have also accumulated a few items of what we might call "trivia" - prints, pictures etc. The two items here come into that category and I know there are many more like them around and they are offered as light relief for Bulletin readers. I know little about The Penny Magazine but it clearly represents a cheap, presumably weekly, publication dedicated to that great Victorian aim of "self improvement". This issue comprises eight pages with items as varied as "Essays on the lives of Remarkable Painters No.XXXI: Andrea del Sarto", "The English and Irish Ordnance Surveys" and "The Hareem of Ibrahim Pasha". I have abridged the item on Centipedes and Millipedes from the original three pages. "The Rabbit and the Centipede" comes from a children's book of 1907. I am not sure that it sheds any particular new light on myriapod locomotory mechanisms.

1 aBarber, Anthony, D. uhttps://www.bmig.org.uk/sites/www.bmig.org.uk/files/bulletin/BullBMIG32(2020)95-97_Myriapod-Trivia.pdf02460nas a2200253 4500008004100000022001400041245009000055210006900145260001500214300001000229490000800239520172000247653001001967653001601977653002001993653001602013653001602029653002402045653001702069100002002086700002402106700002802130856004802158 2020 eng d a1026-051X00aNew data on the centipede fauna (Myriapoda: Chilopoda) of Kostanay Region, Kazakhstan0 aNew data on the centipede fauna Myriapoda Chilopoda of Kostanay  c30/04/2020 a27-320 v4063 a

Abstract: The centipede fauna of the Kostanay Region of Kazakhstan consists of 10 species from 6 genera, 4 families and 3 orders. Lithobius lucifugus L. Koch, 1862 is new to the fauna of Kazakhstan. Five species, Scutigera coleoptrata (Linnaeus, 1758), Lithobius forficatus (Linnaeus, 1758), L. crassipes L. Koch, 1862, Disphaerobius loricatus (Sseliwanoff, 1881), and Polyporogaster porosa (Sseliwanoff, 1881), as well as families Scutigeridae (genus Scutigera Lamarck, 1801) and Himantariidae (genus Polyporogaster Verhoeff, 1899) are recorded from the Kostanay Region for the first time.

Новые данные по фауне губоногих многоножек (Myriapoda: Chilopoda) Костанайской области Казахстана

Резюме. В фауне губоногих многоножек Костанайской области Казахстана выявлено 10 видов из 6 родов, 4 семейств и 3 отрядов. Впервые для Казахстана приводится Lithobius lucifugus L. Koch, 1862. Пять видов [Scutigera coleoptrata (Linnaeus, 1758), Lithobius forficatus (Linnaeus, 1758), L. crassipes L. Koch, 1862, Disphaerobius loricatus (Sseliwanoff, 1881) и Polyporogaster porosa (Sseliwanoff, 1881)], а также семейства Scutigeridae (род Scutigera Lamarck, 1801) и Himantariidae (род Polyporogaster Verhoeff, 1899) впервые указываются для Костанайской области.

10afauna10aGeophilidae10aKostanay Region10aLithobiidae10anew records10aNorthern Kazakhstan10aScutigeridae1 aBragina, T., M.1 aDyachkov, Yurii, V.1 aFarzalieva, Gyulli, Sh. uhttps://www.biosoil.ru/FEE/Publication/194801601nas a2200229 4500008004100000022001400041245009000055210006900145260001500214300001200229490000700241520090700248653001501155653001201170653001501182653001701197653001501214100002701229700002101256700002401277856007001301 2020 eng d a0022-432400aA taxonomic key for nine first record species of Chilopoda-Arthropoda in Central Iraq0 ataxonomic key for nine first record species of ChilopodaArthropo c15/05/2020 a608-6140 v513 a

This study aimed to classified some species of Chilopoda which is the first record in Iraq. The samples collected from April 2018 to March 2019, in some areas of central of Iraq, which are: Baghdad, Anbar, Babylon, Diyala and Qadisiyah. We found nine species from 183 numbers of samples. The species we recorded for a first time in Iraq are: Scolopendra amazonica, S. afer, Cormocephalus nigrificatus, Cryptops anomalans, Geophilus flavus, Haplophilus souletinus, Lithobius microps, Lamyctes emarginatus and Scutigera coleoptrata. The species were supported by photos, then the samples where stored in Iraq Natural History Research center and Museum.

Remark: Keywords are wrong and were not added. The printed keywords belong to the subsequent article (by the same authors) in the issue.

10aChoneiulus10aJulidae10amillipedes10aPolydesmidae10aPolydesmus1 aAl-Doori, Maysaloon, L1 aAzooz, Hayder, W1 aAl-Door, Nibrass, L uhttps://www.lepidopteraresearchfoundation.org/abstract.php?id=21005224nas a2200229 4500008004100000022001400041245020300055210006900258260001500327300001000342490000800352520424000360653001904600653002304619653001604642653001504658653001004673100002004683700002004703700002204723856024904745 2020 eng d a0037-928X00aDistribution and indicator value of intertidal centipedes from Mediterranean beaches within and around Port-Cros National Park (Southern France), with proposal of a simplified monitoring (Chilopoda)0 aDistribution and indicator value of intertidal centipedes from M c20/03/2020 a41-620 v1253 a

Abstract: A study on centipedes living on beaches within and around Port-Cros National Park was conducted during the spring of 2019, using hand-collection along transects. One hundred and twenty chilopods (108 of them being Geophilomorpha) were collected, including the halophilous species Henia bicarinata (Dignathodontidae), Geophilus fucorum and Tuoba poseidonis (Geophilidae). The halophilic character of H. bicarinata and G. fucorum was confirmed on the seashore of continental France while T. poseidonis was considered strictly halophilic. Pachymerium ferrugineum (Geophilidae) was considered only halotolerant, in the way it is not restricted to the coastline area. The dominant sediments were observed to have a moderate influence on the presence of halophilous and halobiontic geophilomorphs, with gravel sediments having a more favourable effect. In addition, microhabitats provided by pebbles are of significant importance for halophilic species while the presence of stranded Posidonia seems useful for these species. The availability of driftwood is favourable only when it gives a limited contact with the substrate or the stranded Posidonia layer. Lastly, the impact of human frequentation was very significant regarding halophilic species; all these species were found to be absent where human activity was high. The presence or absence of halophilic centipedes well shows the conservation state of the shore for species living in this habitat. An experimental easy monitoring with identification sheets is given to determine the conservation state of beaches in South-Eastern France.

Répartition et valeur indicatrice des Chilopodes intertidaux des plages méditerranéennes dans et autour du Parc national de Port-Cros (sud de la France), avec proposition d’une méthode d’évaluation simplifiée (Chilopoda)

Résumé: Une étude sur les Chilopodes des plages dans et autour du Parc national de Port-Cros a été réalisée au printemps 2019, à l’aide de récoltes manuelles dans des transects. Cent-vingt chilopodes (108 de ceux-ci étant des Geophilomorpha) ont été collectés, incluant les espèces halophiles Henia bicarinata (Dignathodontidae), Geophilus fucorum et Tuoba poseidonis (Geophilidae). Le caractère halophile d’H. bicarinata et de G. fucorum est confirmé sur le littoral français, tandis que T. poseidonis est considéré comme strictement halophile (= halobie). Pachymerium ferrugineum (Geophilidae) est seulement considéré comme halotolérant, dans le sens où il n’est pas restreint aux milieux salés littoraux en France. Les sédiments dominants ont une influence modérée sur la présence des halophiles et halobiontes, avec les sédiments graveleux ayant un effet plus favorable. En complément, les micro-habitats fournis par les galets sont d’importance significative pour eux ; quant aux posidonies échouées, elles semblent utiles. La disponibilité de bois échoués est considérée comme favorable uniquement quand ils sont en contact étroit avec le substrat ou la couche de posidonies échouées. Enfin, l’impact de la fréquentation humaine est très significatif sur les espèces halophiles : toutes ces espèces sont absentes quand la fréquentation humaine est élevée. La présence ou absence des chilopodes halophiles est un bon indicateur de l’état de conservation des plages pour les espèces d’Arthropodes inféodées à cet habitat. Un suivi expérimental simplifié avec des fiches d’identification est donné pour déterminer l’état de conservation des plages dans le sudest de la France.

10aGeophilomorpha10ahalophilic species10aHyères Var10aMonitoring10awrack1 aIorio, Étienne1 aGeoffroy, David1 aPétillon, Julien uhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/340067094_Distribution_and_indicator_value_of_intertidal_centipedes_from_Mediterranean_beaches_within_and_around_Port-Cros_National_Park_Southern_France_with_proposal_of_a_simplified_monitoring_Chilopoda01282nas a2200145 4500008004100000022001400041245009000055210006900145260001200214300001000226520079400236100002701030700002001057856005901077 2020 eng d a0242-177100aMyriapodes chilopodes et diplopodes des souterrains de Paris et de sa proche banlieue0 aMyriapodes chilopodes et diplopodes des souterrains de Paris et  c03/2020 a39-473 a

Une campagne d’échantillonnage des invertébrés a été menée dans les réseaux souterrains de la ville de Paris et de la banlieue proche. Le présent travail présente les résultats obtenus concernant les myriapodes (chilopodes et diplopodes) issus de ces récoltes. Six espèces de chilopodes (Classe Chilopoda) et neuf espèces de diplopodes (Classe Diplopoda) ont pu être identifiées. Parmi ces dernières, certaines espèces sont nouvelles pour les départements des Yvelines, des Hauts-de-Seine et de la Seine-Saint-Denis. Ces résultats contribuent à l'enrichissement des inventaires et atlas des myriapodes de France (project INAMYFRA).

1 aGeoffroy, Jean-Jacques1 aFerrand, Marina uhttps://publications.ffspeleo.fr/bulletin.php?id=2599901204nas a2200421 4500008004100000245007500041210006900116300001200185490000700197653001400204653002400218653001900242653001600261653001300277653002400290653001800314653001600332653001900348653001600367653001600383653001700399653001900416653001600435653001900451653001600470653001600486653001400502653001600516653001500532653001600547653002200563653001400585653002000599653001900619653001700638100001700655856011000672 1997 eng d00aTracheal systems in Chilopoda: a comparison under phylogenetic aspects0 aTracheal systems in Chilopoda a comparison under phylogenetic as a49–600 v5110aChilopoda10aCraterostigmomorpha10aCraterostigmus10aCryptopidae10aCryptops10aElektronenmikroskop10aG.carpophagus10aGeophilidae10aGeophilomorpha10aH.gabrielis10aHimentarium10aL.forficatus10aLichtmikroskop10aLithobiidae10aLithobiomorpha10aMikroskopie10amorphologie10aMyriapoda10aOnychophora10aPhylogenie10aScolopendra10aScolopendromorpha10aScutigera10aScutigeromorpha10aTracheensystem10avergleichend1 aHilken, Gero uhttps://myriatrix.myspecies.info/content/tracheal-systems-chilopoda-comparison-under-phylogenetic-aspects01169nas a2200409 4500008004100000245006500041210006500106300001100171490000700182653001400189653002400203653001900227653001600246653002300262653002400285653001800309653001600327653001900343653001600362653001600378653001700394653001900411653001600430653001900446653001600465653001600481653001500497653001600512653001600528653002200544653001400566653002000580653001900600653001700619100001700636856010600653 1998 eng d00aVergleich von Tracheensystemen unter phylogenetischem Aspekt0 aVergleich von Tracheensystemen unter phylogenetischem Aspekt a5–940 v3710aChilopoda10aCraterostigmomorpha10aCraterostigmus10aCryptopidae10aCryptops hortensis10aElektronenmikroskop10aG.carpophagus10aGeophilidae10aGeophilomorpha10aH.gabrielis10aHimentarium10aL.forficatus10aLichtmikroskop10aLithobiidae10aLithobiomorpha10aMikroskopie10amorphologie10aPhylogenie10aS.cingulata10aScolopendra10aScolopendromorpha10aScutigera10aScutigeromorpha10aTracheensystem10avergleichend1 aHilken, Gero uhttps://myriatrix.myspecies.info/content/vergleich-von-tracheensystemen-unter-phylogenetischem-aspekt03914nas a2200505 4500008004100000022001400041245012800055210006900183260001500252300000900267490000700276520241600283653002402699653001302723653002302736653002102759653001802780653001802798653002102816653001202837653001902849100002702868700002002895700002202915700002102937700002202958700001802980700001702998700001703015700001803032700002303050700002003073700002303093700002403116700001803140700002403158700002803182700002703210700001903237700002003256700001403276700001903290700002103309856007803330 2020 eng d a1471-214800aFour myriapod relatives – but who are sisters? No end to debates on relationships among the four major myriapod subgroups0 aFour myriapod relatives but who are sisters No end to debates on c04/11/2020 a1-150 v203 a

Background: Phylogenetic relationships among the myriapod subgroups Chilopoda, Diplopoda, Symphyla and Pauropoda are still not robustly resolved. The first phylogenomic study covering all subgroups resolved phylogenetic relationships congruently to morphological evidence but is in conflict with most previously published phylogenetic trees based on diverse molecular data. Outgroup choice and long-branch attraction effects were stated as possible explanations for these incongruencies. In this study, we addressed these issues by extending the myriapod and outgroup taxon sampling using transcriptome data.

Results: We generated new transcriptome data of 42 panarthropod species, including all four myriapod subgroups and additional outgroup taxa. Our taxon sampling was complemented by published transcriptome and genome data resulting in a supermatrix covering 59 species. We compiled two data sets, the first with a full coverage of genes per species (292 single-copy protein-coding genes), the second with a less stringent coverage (988 genes). We inferred phylogenetic relationships among myriapods using different data types, tree inference, and quartet computation approaches. Our results unambiguously support monophyletic Mandibulata and Myriapoda. Our analyses clearly showed that there is strong signal for a single unrooted topology, but a sensitivity of the position of the internal root on the choice of outgroups. However, we observe strong evidence for a clade Pauropoda+Symphyla, as well as for a clade Chilopoda+Diplopoda.

Conclusions: Our best quartet topology is incongruent with current morphological phylogenies which were supported in another phylogenomic study. AU tests and quartet mapping reject the quartet topology congruent to trees inferred with morphological characters. Moreover, quartet mapping shows that confounding signal present in the data set is sufficient to explain the weak signal for the quartet topology derived from morphological characters. Although outgroup choice affects results, our study could narrow possible trees to derivatives of a single quartet topology. For highly disputed relationships, we propose to apply a series of tests (AU and quartet mapping), since results of such tests allow to narrow down possible relationships and to rule out confounding signal.

 

10aArthropod phylogeny10aconflict10aConfounding signal10aInternal rooting10aPhylogenetics10aphylogenomics10aQuartet topology10aRNA-Seq10aTranscriptomes1 aSzucsich, Nikolaus, U.1 aBartel, Daniela1 aBlanke, Alexander1 aBöhm, Alexander1 aDonath, Alexander1 aFukui, Makiko1 aGrove, Simon1 aLiu, Shanlin1 aMacek, Oliver1 aMachida, Ryuichiro1 aMisof, Bernhard1 aNakagaki, Yasutaka1 aPodsiadlowski, Lars1 aSekiya, Kaoru1 aTomizuka, Shigekazu1 aVon Reumont, Björn, M.1 aWaterhouse, Robert, M.1 aWalzl, Manfred1 aMeng, Guanliang1 aZhou, Xin1 aPass, Günther1 aMeusemann, Karen uhttps://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12862-020-01699-000339nas a2200109 4500008004100000245004300041210004300084300001200127490000700139100002900146856005400175 1878 eng d00aJapanesische Arachniden und Myriapoden0 aJapanesische Arachniden und Myriapoden a735-7980 v271 aKoch, Ludwig, Carl Chris uhttps://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/4288226901112nas a2200253 4500008004100000022001400041245007600055210006900131260001500200300001000215490000700225520036800232653001400600653001500614653001600629100001800645700002700663700002300690700002400713700002200737700002500759700002200784856005200806 2010 eng d a1313-298900aA common terminology for the external anatomy of centipedes (Chilopoda)0 acommon terminology for the external anatomy of centipedes Chilop c18/11/2010 a17-510 v693 a

A common terminology for the external morphological characters of centipedes (Chilopoda) is proposed. Terms are selected from the alternatives used in the English literature, preferring those most frequently used or those that have been introduced explicitly. A total of 330 terms are defined and illustrated, and another ca. 500 alternatives are listed.

10aChilopoda10amorphology10aterminology1 aBonato, Lucio1 aEdgecombe, Gregory, D.1 aLewis, John, G. E.1 aMinelli, Alessandro1 aPereira, Luis, A.1 aShelley, Rowland, M.1 aZapparoli, Marzio uhttp://zookeys.pensoft.net/articles.php?id=246601913nas a2200193 4500008004100000245010400041210006900145260004600214520126200260653001601522653001401538653003101552653001601583653001601599653001401615653002601629100001801655856004601673 2015 eng d00aType specimens of centipedes (Myriapoda, Chilopoda) in the National Museum, Prague (Czech Republic)0 aType specimens of centipedes Myriapoda Chilopoda in the National aOlomouc, Czech RepublicbZooKeysc06/20153 a

The centipede collection in the National Museum in Prague contains type material of 16 taxa (14 species and two subspecies), of which 15 were described by Luděk J. Dobroruka and one by Karl W. Verhoeff: Allothereua wilsonae Dobroruka, 1979; Chinobius alenae Dobroruka, 1980; Lithobius corrigendus Dobroruka, 1988; L. creticus Dobroruka, 1977; L. erythrocephalus mohelensis Dobroruka, 1959; L. evae Dobroruka, 1958; L. magurensis Dobroruka, 1971; L. purkynei Dobroruka, 1957; L. tatricus Dobroruka, 1958; L. tatricus monounguis Dobroruka, 1958; Monotarsobius homolaci Dobroruka, 1971; M. krali Dobroruka, 1979; Pachymerium dilottiae Dobroruka, 1976; P. hanzaki Dobroruka, 1976; Scolopendra aztecorum Verhoeff, 1934 and Strigamia olympica Dobroruka, 1977. Of these 16 taxa, five were described from the Czech Republic, three from Slovakia and eight from other countries (Greece, Iraq, Kyrgyzstan, Mexico, Nepal, Russia and Uzbekistan). The eight taxa described from the Czech and Slovak Republics are now considered as junior synonyms but the eight taxa described from the other countries are still valid.

10aAllothereua10aLithobius10aLuděk Jindřich Dobroruka10aPachymerium10aScolopendra10aStrigamia10aZoological collection1 aDolejš, Petr uhttps://zookeys.pensoft.net/article/5513/01921nas a2200265 4500008004100000245005800041210005600099300001100155490000700166520120400173653001501377653001401392653001401406653002301420653000801443653001001451653001001461653001501471653000901486653001201495653001301507100003301520700003001553856007201583 2018 eng d00aChecklist of the centipedes (Chilopoda) of Hispaniola0 aChecklist of the centipedes Chilopoda of Hispaniola a74-1010 v123 a

Ten years have passed since the last checklist of Hispaniolan Chilopoda was done and the last bibliographic compendium was published. In this work we expand the former list of species and bibliography, update the taxonomic classification and provide an assessment on Chilobase records. A new intensive literature review was performed and both recent and formerly overlooked myriapodological works were included. The treatment of supraspecific taxonomic ranks was updated and follows Chilobase 2.0. This catalogue lists 4 fossil taxa as well as 24 extant species of centipedes from Hispaniola, 9 of which are endemic. For each extant species considered, there is information on Hispaniolan synonymies and geographic distribution. Included are some clarifications on synonymies and locality problems, and species with uncertain taxonomic status are indicated. Chilobase 2.0 was tested for completeness and accuracy. We propose several updates, grouped by incorrect species records, records not backed by known literature and species not under their currently accepted synonym. We also recommend chilopodologists to maintain active collaboration and send their updates to this useful database.

10acentipedes10aChilobase10aChilopoda10aDominican Republic10aEoL10afauna10aHaiti10aHispaniola10aITIS10aMCZbase10aMyriaLit1 aMartínez-Muñoz, Carlos, A.1 aPerez-Gelabert, Daniel, E uhttp://novitatescaribaea.do/index.php/novitates/article/view/86/155