4.0 Article

The scolopendromorph centipedes of Mauritius and Rodrigues and their adjacent islets (Chilopoda : Scolopendromorpha)

期刊

JOURNAL OF NATURAL HISTORY
卷 36, 期 1, 页码 79-106

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00222930110098508

关键词

taxonomy; centipedes; Chilopoda; Scolopendromorpha; Mauritius; Rodrigues; Round Island

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The results of a survey of the scolopendromorph centipedes of Mauritius and Rodrigues and their offshore islets for surviving endemic species are reported. This fauna was poorly known, only five species having been reported from the islands. Collections were made from Mauritius and Gunner's Quoin, Round Island, with its remnant of palm savanna, Serpent Island and Ile aux Aigrettes which contains the last remnant of coastal forest. Collections were also made on Rodrigues and two small coral sand islets-Ile aux Sables and Ile Cocos. Eight species were recorded from Mauritius. Rhysida longipes longipes (Newport, 1845), a widespread tropical species and Cryptops decoratus Lawrence, 1960, hitherto known from Madagascar, are new records and two new endemic species are described: Rhysida jonesi, from Round Island and Cryptops daszaki, found only on Ile aux Aigrettes. This brings the number of endemics to four. Further material of the upland forest endemic Cryptops mauritianus Verhoeff, 1939 was obtained and the species redescribed. The characteristics of Otostigmus rugulosus Porat, 1876, a widespread species first described from Mauritius, are discussed. Four species were found on Rodrigues of which Otostigmus rugulosus and Cryptops niloticus Lewis, 1967 are new records. Both are widespread species. No endemics were found, probably reflecting the denuded state of the vegetation. A key is provided for the identification of the 10 species from the islands. The differences between the Cryptops species are discussed as is the distribution of scolopendromorphs on the islands. Coverage of the islands is still poor and further collection is desirable.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据