Megaphyllum projectum projectum Verhoeff, 1894
publication ID |
https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3741.1.2 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:BF5EA9B8-C6F4-448A-BEF9-1976AB4EC308 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6151714 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03C887D3-FFF0-FFBD-FF34-9D8AFD12A901 |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Megaphyllum projectum projectum Verhoeff, 1894 |
status |
|
Megaphyllum projectum projectum Verhoeff, 1894 View in CoL
Figs 4j–l View FIGURES 4 a – l
Julus austriacus: Latzel 1884: 296 –300, partim.
Megaphyllum projectum Verhoeff, 1894 : Verhoeff 1894d: 323–324, no figures. Brachyiulus austriacus Latz. ssp. projectus: Verhoeff 1896 a: Figs 27–28. Brachyiulus projectus: Verhoeff 1897b: 111 –112.
Brachyiulus projectus var. alticolus Verhoeff, 1897b: 112 , Fig. III. Brachyiulus projectus alticolus: Verhoeff 1907: 303 , 305, Figs 10–12 View FIGURES 10 a – g View FIGURES 11 a – g View FIGURES 12 a – g . Brachyiulus projectus dioritanus Verhoeff, 1907: 303 , 305, Figs 5–8 View FIGURES 5 a – g View FIGURES 7 a – g View FIGURES 8 a – f . Brachyiulus projectus kochi Verhoeff, 1907: 302 , 304, Figs 3 View FIGURES 3 a – f , 9 View FIGURES 9 a – g partim. Chromatoiulus projectus projectus: Attems 1929: 331 .
Chromatoiulus (Chromatoiulus) projectus projectus: Lokšina & Golovatch 1979: 385 . Chromatoiulus (Chromatoiulus) projectus: Attems 1940: 306 .
Chromatoiulus proiectus: Haacker & Fuchs 1972: 191 .
Chromatoiulus projectus: Strasser 1966a: 210 .
Brachyiulus projectus dioritanus: Verhoeff 1927: 121 .
Chromatoiulus projectus dioritanus: Schubart 1934a: 280 , Fig. 437. Chromatoiulus projectus var. dioritanus: Szalay 1940: 8 –9; 1943: 141–142. Megaphyllum projectum dioritanum: Korsós 1994: 38 .
Megaphyllum projectus dioritanus: Giurginca et al. 2007: 236 .
Megaphyllum (Chromatoiulus) projectus dioritanus: Gulička 1985a: 120 . Megaphyllum projectum: Hoffman 1980: 104 ; Enghoff & Kime 2009. Megaphyllum projectum projectum: Lazányi & Korsós 2011: 45 –49, Figs 1–8 View FIGURES 1 a – e View FIGURES 2 a – f View FIGURES 3 a – f View FIGURES 4 a – l View FIGURES 5 a – g View FIGURES 7 a – g View FIGURES 8 a – f ; 2012: 4, 21, 40.
Material examined. Inv. Nr. 8133, 4♂, Ungarn, Siebenbürgen, Kroatien, [ Hungary, Romania and Croatia], 1919, don. Latzel, Ch. austriacus sensu Latzel det. Attems (NHMW); Hungary: 1♂, 1♀, Fényi-erdő, Bátorliget, from under barks, leaf-litter sifting and singling, 2011.05.28., leg. Novák J. (HNHM); Romania: 1♂, 1juv., Medgyes [Mediaş], leg. Dr. Tömösváry Ö., 830/1888, Rev. Loksa 55/1955 (HNHM); Serbia: ZMB 1846: 2♂, 4♀, 13 juv., Julus austriacus Syntypen, “ J. fasciatus C. L. Koch Name ungiltig!”, Serbien (MNB); Slovakia: 1♂, Körtvélyes [Hrušov], leg. Raisz G., 830/1888, Julus austriacus var. nigrescens det. Dr. Daday, Revid. Loksa 56/1955 (HNHM).
Distribution. Austria: Graz ( type locality) Innsbruck, Isel (Thaler et al. 1993), Feldbach, Gleisdorf, Oberaudorf (Lazányi & Korsós 2011); Croatia: Vidovec, Želesnica, Tužno (Attems 1929); Istria (Lazányi & Korsós 2011); Germany: Grünkopf, Partenkirchen (Lazányi & Korsós 2011); Hungary: (Loksa 1984, Korsós 1994) Nagy-Szénás (Sallai 1992); Bátorliget (Szlávecz & Loksa 1992); Aggteleki National Park (Lazányi & Korsós 2009); Misina and Tubes (Gebhardt 1964); Mecsek (Gebhardt 1966); Bükk (Loksa 1968b); Bakony (Loksa 1971); Pilis (Loksa 1988); Kecske cave (Szalay 1940); Kőszegi Mts (Szalay 1943); Italy: Vipiteno (Lazányi & Korsós 2011); Republic of Moldova: Brǎseu, Socola, Bǎrnova (Jawłowski 1935); Romania: Făgăraş (Gava 2004); Judeţul Vrancea (Tăbăcaru 1976); Podu Olt (Ceuca et al. 1983); Valea Arieşului (Crişan 1999); Slovakia: Kremnica (Lazányi & Korsós 2011); Slovenia: Lower Carniolan (Dolenjska) hillside and Gorjanci Mt. (Strasser 1966a).
Diagnosis. Differs from the most similar subspecies M. p. kochi by having larger and more bulging promeres ( P) (see Fig. 4j View FIGURES 4 a – l in comparison with 4e) and better developed apical serrated lobe ( sl) of the promere—discernible not only from posterior but also from meso-posterior view ( Fig. 4j View FIGURES 4 a – l ).
Both processes of the opisthomere ( Fig. 4k View FIGURES 4 a – l ) ( ap and pp) well-developed; the solenomere’s posterior process ( psp) generally elongated, mostly—at least slightly, depending on individual variation—longer than the anterior process ( asp).
Body length and height: males: 25.9–53.9mm, 1.8–3.2mm; females: 30–51.9mm, 2.6–4.2mm.
Remarks. Nominotypical subspecies of the Megaphyllum type species, distributed in the southern half of the species’ distribution range, with a northern border formed by the Carpathians and the Alps; its taxonomic status has been recently clarified by Lazányi & Korsós (2011).
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
|
SubGenus |
Megaphyllum |