Kronopolites svenhedini ( Verhoeff, 1934 )

Kronopolites svenhedini ( Verhoeff, 1934) View in CoL sp. reval.

Figs 1 B View Figure 1 , 5 View Figure 5 , 6 View Figure 6 , 7 View Figure 7

Stronglosoma Swinhoei : Brölemann 1896: 354–357, fig. 9–11; Attems 1898: 304 (misidentified).

Kansupus svenhedini Verhoeff, 1934: 17, figs. 4–8, synonymized by Hoffman 1962: 581. Type locality: N. O. Szetschuan (= northeastern Sichuan Province), China; ♂ and Süd-Kansu (= Longnan, Gansu Province, China; ♀). View in CoL

Kronopolites swinhoei View in CoL : Attems 1914: 219; Attems 1936: 226, fig. 44; Attems 1937: 50–51, fig. 64; Chamberlin and Wang 1953: 5; Hoffman 1962: 581–583, figs 1, 2; Golovatch 1978: 678; 1982: 298; Wang 1996: 86; Geoffroy and Golovatch 2004: 20; Korsós 2004: 23; Chen et al. 2006 a: 252; Golovatch 2009: 121; 2013: 2, figs 1–4; Nguyen and Sierwald 2013: 1286; Likhitrakarn et al. 2015: 32 View Cited Treatment ; Golovatch 2016: 1; 2019: 348, figs 4, 5; 2020: 166; Golovatch and Liu 2020: 170; Golovatch and Semenyuk 2021: 479, figs 28–30 (misidentified).

Kronopolites svenhedini View in CoL : Attems 1936: 233; 1937: 53, fig. 66; Zhang and Li 1978: 12; Wang 1996: 86.

Kansupus svenhedini var. dentiger Verhoeff, 1934: 19, fig. 9; Attems 1936: 233; Attems 1937: 54, synonymized with Kronopolites swinhoei by Hoffman 1962: 581. Type locality: Pei-shui-ho (= Baishuijiang National Nature Reserve), Wen County, Gansu Province, China). View in CoL

Material examined.

China – • Gansu Province: 5 ♂♂ and 40 ♀♀ (20230922044, - 45, - 46, 20230922048–20230922051, 20230922054–20230922057, - 60, - 61, - 63, - 66, - 67, - 68, - 70, - 72, - 73, - 75, - 76, 20230922078–20230922090, 20230922092–20230922098, - 101, - 102, - 104), Lintao County, Fenghuangshan Forest Park (35.4009 ° N, 103.8901 ° E), 1960 m a. s. l., 22. IX. 2023, Tianyun Chen, Jiabo Fan & Yiying Zhao leg., ( CMMI) GoogleMaps ; • 2 ♂♂ and 2 ♀♀, Dingxi City, Anding District, Guanying Town, Yawan Village , 27. VI. 2008, Zhiyong Di leg., ( IBGAS) . • Henan Province: 1 ♂ and 2 ♀♀, Xinyang City, Dabieshan station (32.1252 ° N, 114.0118 ° E), 110 m a. s. l., 10. VIII. 2023, Xuankong Jiang & Leilei Shi leg., ( IBGAS) GoogleMaps ; • 1 ♂ and 1 ♀ 5 J, Xinyang City, Shihe district, Bailongtan Reservoir (31.9987 ° N, 113.9105 ° E), 230 m a. s. l., 10. VIII. 2023, Xuankong Jiang & Leilei Shi leg., ( IBGAS) GoogleMaps ; • 17 ♂♂ and 5 ♀♀ 3 J, Xinyang, Nanwan Reservoir (32.1252 ° N, 114.0118 ° E), 110 m a. s. l., 9. VIII. 2023, Xuankong Jiang & Leilei Shi leg., ( IBGAS) GoogleMaps . • Qinghai Province: 3 ♂♂ and 10 ♀♀, Huangnan Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture , Jianzha County, Zhiyong Di leg., ( IBGAS) . • Shaanxi Province: 1 ♂ (20190907029), Mei County, Honghegu National Forest Park (34.0533 ° N, 107.7836 ° E), 1730 m a. s. l., 7. IX. 2019, Chao Jiang leg., ( CMMI) GoogleMaps ; • 3 ♂♂ and 4 ♀♀ (20200905117, - 118, 20230802001, - 02), Xi’an, Huyi District, Taiping National Forest Park (33.9951 ° N, 108.7163 ° E), 540 m a. s. l., 2. VIII. 2023, Tianyun Chen & Yuan Xiong leg., ( CMMI) GoogleMaps . • Zhejiang Province: 3 ♂♂ and 3 ♀♀, Anji County, Longwangshan Scenic Area , 22. VII. 2018, Rong Fu leg., ( IBGAS) .

Diagnosis.

Differs from other species of the genus by the following combination of characters: metazonae have two shapes, either as a transverse band or a median oval spot, and also have two color variations, ranging from pale yellow to orange-red; paraterga relatively poorly developed, set lower (mostly at about 1 / 3 height of segments), caudal corners usually not surpassing rear tergal contours, at most narrowly rounded; ♂ sternal cones present; processes a and b of gonopod on a broad common stem, neither slender nor long ( Golovatch 2009).

Description.

Length ca 26.0–50.0 mm (♂), 27.0–60.0 mm (♀) with 20 segments. Live color variable (Fig. 1 B View Figure 1 ). Head, prozonae, anterior part of collum, and metazonae black; posterior part of collum and each metazonite with transverse band or oval spot, pale yellow to orange-red. If the patches not covering ozopores, then the ozopores exhibit the same color of the patches. Telson black with color of tip identical to the patches. Antennae black; legs black to reddish brown (Fig. 5 A – H View Figure 5 ).

Head densely setose. Antennae moderately long (Fig. 5 A View Figure 5 ), extending behind body segment 3 when stretched dorsally. Width gradually widened from collum to 5 th segment, roughly equal in 5 th – 16 th segments, and tapering from 16 th to telson.

Collum of different specimens with one or two transverse rows of setae, one row with 1 + 1 anterior, two rows with 1 + 1 at both anterior and intermediate. Caudal corner of collum very broadly rounded, declined ventrad, produced behind rear tergal margin (Fig. 5 A, B View Figure 5 ).

Cuticle shining, prozonae finely shagreened, metaterga finely rugulose (Fig. 5 A, C, F View Figure 5 ), surface below paranota finely microgranulate (Fig. 5 B, D View Figure 5 ). Postcollum metaterga with one transverse row of setae: 4 + 4 or 3 + 3 in anterior (pre-sulcus). Tergal setae long and slender, mostly abraded. Paranota well developed (Fig. 5 A – F View Figure 5 ), lying rather high (at upper 1 / 2 of body), arched. Ozopores evident, lateral, lying in an ovoid groove at about 1 / 4 in front of posterior edge of metaterga, in segments 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15–19. Transverse sulcus usually distinct (Fig. 5 A, C, F View Figure 5 ), slightly incomplete on segment 18, complete on metaterga 3–18 (♂), narrow, linear, shallow, reaching bases of paranota, faintly ribbed at bottom. Stricture between pro- and metazonae evident, broad and deep, ribbed at bottom down to base of paranota (Fig. 5 A, B, D, G View Figure 5 ). Pleurosternal carinae with a sharp caudal tooth on segments 2–7, thereafter increasingly strongly reduced until 18 th segment (♂). Epiproct (Fig. 5 G, H View Figure 5 ) conical, flattened dorsoventrally, with two small apical papillae; tip subtruncate; pre-apical papillae small, lying close to tip. Hypoproct roundly subtriangular, spinnerets at caudal edge small and well separated (Fig. 5 H View Figure 5 ). Sterna densely setose with a long tongue-shaped process on ♂ coxae 4 (Fig. 5 E View Figure 5 ). Legs rather long and slender (Fig. 5 A, B, D, G View Figure 5 ).

Coxite of gonopods (Fig. 6 View Figure 6 ) thick, pressing inwards on the spermathecal fossa in the prefemur. Prefemur short, with numerous slender setae. Femorite rather stout, with an evident mesal groove and a strong distolateral sulcus demarcating a postfemoral part; the latter well developed, with very prominent bipartite, crescent-shaped, lateral processes: process a rather long and broad; process b short, broad and pointed. Solenophore in the form of a long, tubular branch. Solenomere flagelliform.

Distribution.

China: Chongqing, Qinghai, Gansu, Guizhou, Henan (new record), Shaanxi, Sichuan, Yunnan and Zhejiang ( Golovatch 2019; Chen et al. 2023).

Remarks.

Verhoeff (1934) described a new monotypic genus and species, Kansupus svenhedini , based on specimens from Gansu, China. Later, Attems (1936) and Hoffman (1962) synonymized the name with Kronopolites and K. swinhoei respectively, relying on Brölemann’s (1896) description. However, our research shows that Brölemann (1896) misidentified this species. Thus, K. svenhedini sp. reval. should be resurrected. To maintain the stability of the taxonomic name Kronopolites , the type species of Kronopolites now fixed (under Article 70.3 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 1999) as Kronopolites svenhedini ( Verhoeff, 1934) , which was misidentified as Kronopolites swinhoei ( Pocock, 1895) in the original designation by Attems (1914). Furthermore, the publications mentioning this species did not state where the type specimen is preserved, rendering the location of its storage unknown ( Verhoeff 1934; Attems 1936, 1937; Hoffman 1962; Zhang and Li 1978; Wang 1996).

Kronopolites svenhedini ( Verhoeff, 1934) sp. reval. is widely distributed in China, with the westernmost occurrence in Qinghai, the easternmost in Zhejiang, the southernmost in Yunnan and the northernmost in Gansu. It shows variation in color, body size, and subtle differences in gonopod shape among different populations ( Golovatch 2013). These differences may be attributed to geographic isolation or varying habitats, suggesting the potential presence of cryptic species. This hypothesis could be explored in future research using molecular methods.