Scolopendra morsitans, Linnaeus, 1758: 638

morsitans Linnaeus, 1758:638 View in CoL .

Holotype ( LSUK, a dry, pinned specimen in Aptera Box 33); type locality: India .

Original rank: species. Current rank and status: valid species.

Anatomical illustrations: Attems (1930, figs. 38–39), Lewis (1966, figs. 2–4; 1968, figs. 3–9, 13–16, 20–24; & 1969, figs. 3–5, all as S. amazonica ; 2001, figs. 2–4, as S. morsitans ), L. E. Koch (1983, figs. 1–15), Shelley (2002, figs. 57–64), Shelley et al. (2005, fig. 1).

Distribution: believed to be native to Africa, Australia, & Asia from India to Papua New Guinea & the Philippines ( L. E. Koch 1983, Khanna 2001, Shelley et al. 2005); its sporadic occurrence in the New World undoubtedly reflects human introductions. According to Shelley (2002) and Shelley et al. (2005), S. morsitans occurs on Anguilla, Antigua, Bahamas ( Eleuthera, Exuma, New Providence), Barbuda, Cayman Islands ( Grand & Little Cayman), Curaçao, Dominica, Grenadines ( Bequia), Guadeloupe, Hispaniola ( Haiti, Dominican Republic), Jamaica, Marie Galante, Martinique, Montserrat, Nevis, St. Barthélemy, St. Kitts, St. Vincent, Tobago, Turks and Caicos ( Grand Turk, South & West Caicos), Puerto Rico, & the US Virgin Islands ( St. Croix & St. Thomas). On the continental land mass, the centipede has been encountered in the US ( Florida); Mexico ( Baja California Sur, Colima, Tamaulipas, Veracruz, Yucátan), Belize, Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia ( Casanare, Cordoba), Venezuela, Guyana, Surinam, French Guiana, Ecuador, Peru ( Huanuco, La Libertad, Loreto, San Martinj), Brazil ( Amazonas, Bahia, Goias, Mato Grosso, Pará, Paraiba, Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo), Paraguay, & Argentina ( Brölemann 1901, 1902 a, b, 1903, 1909; Attems 1930; Bücherl 1939, 1942 a, 1950, 1974; Jeekel 1952; Shelley 2002; Shelley et al. 2005). Maps: Shelley et al. (2005, figs. 2–3).

Remarks: Scolopendra morsitans was designated the type species of Scolopendra in 1957 under the plenary powers of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature ( Opinion 454) in response to the application by Crabill (1955).