Pseudonannolene strangulata ( Humbert & de Saussure, 1870 ), 2025

Pseudonannolene strangulata ( Humbert & de Saussure, 1870) comb. nov.

( Fig. 1 View FIGURE 1 )

Spirostreptus strangulatus Humbert & de Saussure, 1870: 175 .

Spirostreptus strangulatus — de Saussure & Humbert 1872: 71, pl. 3, fig 7.— Goeldi 1895: 162.—Attems 1914: 178 [as “incertae sedis”].— Schubart 1958: 241.— Hollier et al. 2017: 218.

Descriptive notes (based on R.L. Hoffman’s illustrations of the gonopods of the MHNG male). Gonocoxa ( gcx) elongate, nearly twice as long as telopodite; flattened antero-posteriorly, with rows of papillae ( pp) mesally. Shoulder of gcx short. Seminal groove not demarcated. Telopodite ( tp) less than half the width of gcx; solenomere ( sl) with subtriangular apicomesal process ( amp); ectal process absent; seminal apophysis ( sa) at mesal portion. Internal branch ( ib) shovelshaped, apically rounded, with horizontal plate; setae restricted to apical region of ib, exceeding seminal region of sl.

Comments. Gonopods of Pseudonannolene strangulata comb. nov. closely resemble those of Pseudonannolene maritima Schubart, 1949 , in solenomere shape and absence of an ectal process. Intriguingly, whereas the former is known only from Mato Grosso, P. maritima occurs sparsely in the Atlantic Forest of the coastal region of São Paulo State and on islands of the Brazilian archipelago of Alcatrazes, ca. 1,500 km away from Mato Grosso ( Iniesta et al. 2023: fig. 184). The main difference between both species lies in the internal branch, which is apically swollen when viewed anally in P. maritima ( Iniesta et al. 2023: figs 32B, 90D–F, 91D), whereas it is narrow in P. strangulata comb. nov. ( Fig. 1B View FIGURE 1 ).

Regarding type designation, the sole name-bearing type of this species is the single specimen described by Humbert & de Saussure (1870), not the two additional topotypes later described by de Saussure & Humbert (1872). Although the MHNG collection houses the single male examined by R. L. Hoffman, and the NHMW houses two additional specimens (a female and another of unspecified sex), no further taxonomic action can presently be undertaken, the only impediment being the uncertainty surrounding the male’s suitability for objective typification. This precaution follows ICZN Articles 61.1.2 and 61.1.3 and aims to preserve the nomenclatural stability of the species name.