Search

4. Geophilus metopias Attems, 190��3 Attems 1903b: 246���247, plate 14, fig. 41; plate. 15, figs. 45���47 (as Geophilus (Eurytion) metopias n. sp.); see also Attems 1903a: 80 Type locality and specimens. Fundort [locality]: Corral, Chile (Dr. Michaelsen und Dr. Plate coll.). Dimensions. L��nge [length] 35 mm, Breite 1,8 mm [width 1.8 mm], 49 Beinpaare [leg pairs] (2♀). Type material. Syntype ♀ (ZMH-A0000558). CHILE: Valdivia Province, Corral [ca. 39��52���S, 73��26���W]. Preservation. 1 jar: Label 1. 48. Corral. Coll. Michaelsen. 31.III.93; Label 2. Geophilus metopias Att. Typus Coll. Michaelsen, 31.III.93, Corral. Chile. Old type catalogue. Weidner (1960), p. 62, No. 18. Holotype ♀. Curatorial remarks. 1 microscope slide is held at the ZMH (notes on file card: ���1 Pr��p., Chile, Coronnel, 15.1.1920, R. Paessler, Crabill det. et rev. et pr��p.���). Other type material. There is 1♀ defective, 1 slide (head, remounted from Attems��� original slide by Crabill) (syntype) from Chile, ���Corral��� (coll. W. Michaelsen) held at the NHMW (no. 7023). Ilie et al. (2009: 44) noted: ��� 1♀ syntype from Corall collected by Plate is stored at the ZMB (Moritz & Fischer 1979: 346) and 1♀ indicated as holotype (sic!) labelled only ��� Chile, Corrall��� at the ZMH (Weidner 1960: 62)���. There is also a syntype from Corral at the ZMB (no. 2917). The ZMH specimen is a syntype. Collection remarks. The specimen was collected by Wilhelm Michaelsen during his expedition to the southern tip of South America 1892���93. Current systematic position. Plateurytion metopias (Attems, 1903); transferred to this genus by Bonato et al. (2007: 6)., Published as part of Thofern, Detlef, Dup��rr��, Nadine & Harms, Danilo, 2021, An annotated type catalogue of the centipedes (Myriapoda: Chilopoda) held in the Zoological Museum Hamburg, pp. 1-103 in Zootaxa 4977 (1) on pages 13-14, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4977.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/4819677, {"references":["Attems, C. (1903 b) Synopsis der Geophiliden. Zoologische Jahrbucher. Abteilung fur Systematik, 18, 155 - 302.","Attems, C. (1903 a) Beitrage zur Myriopodenkunde. Zoologische Jahrbucher. Abteilung fur Systematik, 18, 63 - 154.","Weidner, H. (1960) Die Entomologischen Sammlungen des Zoologischen Staatsinstituts und Zoologischen Museums Hamburg. III. Teil Chilopoda und Progoneata. Mitteilungen des Hamburger Zoologischen Museums Hamburg, 58, 57 - 104.","Ilie, V., Schiller, E. & Stagl, V. (2009) The specimens of the Geophilomorpha (Chilopoda) in the Natural History Museum in Vienna. Katalog der wissenschaftlichen Sammlungen des Naturhistorischen Museums in Wien, Myriapoda, 22, 1 - 75.","Moritz, M. & Fischer, S. - C. (1979) Die Typen der Myriapoden-Sammlung des Zoologischen Museums Berlin. II. Chilopoda. Mitteilungen aus dem Zoologischen Museum in Berlin, 55, 297 - 352. https: // doi. org / 10.1002 / mmnz. 4830550215","Bonato, L., Pereira, L. A. & Minelli, A. (2007) Taxonomic and nomenclatural notes on the centipede genera Chomatobius, Ityphilus, Hapleurytion, Plateurytion, and Steneurytion (Chilopoda: Geophilomorpha). Zootaxa, 1485 (1), 1 - 12. https: // doi. org / 10.11646 / zootaxa. 1485.1.1"]}

7. Geophilus conjungens Verhoeff, 1898 Verhoeff 1898: 350, plate VIII, figs. 13���15 (as G. conjungens mihi.) Type locality and specimens. Vorkommen [Habitat]: Cilicien, Kleinasien [today ��ukurova Region or Cilicia, Turkey] (von Herrn M. Holtz gesammelt [collected by Mr. M. Holtz]). Dimensions. ♀ 55 mm lg. [length] mit 71 Beinpaaren [leg pairs]. ♂ 32 mm lg. mit 67 Beinpaaren. Type material. Syntypes 2 (ZMH-A0000553, ZMH-A0006385). TURKEY: ��ukurova Region [ca. 36��52���N, 35��29���E]. Preservation. 1 jar: Label. Geophilus conjungens Verh, ex typis, Verhoeff v. 1.I.1899, Kleinasien. Old type catalogue. Weidner (1960), p. 62, No. 11. Paratype. Additional type material. There are additional specimens from ���Kleinasien��� at the ZMB (no. 3386, 3386a) and all listed specimens are syntypes. Collection remarks. The type locality ���Cilicien, Kleinasien��� refers to the ancient Roman province Cilicia. Additional remarks. Weidner (1960: 62) noted that the specimen was purchased from Verhoeff. Current systematic position. Diphyonyx conjungens (Verhoeff, 1898); transferred to this genus by Bonato et al. (2008: 344)., Published as part of Thofern, Detlef, Dup��rr��, Nadine & Harms, Danilo, 2021, An annotated type catalogue of the centipedes (Myriapoda: Chilopoda) held in the Zoological Museum Hamburg, pp. 1-103 in Zootaxa 4977 (1) on page 15, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4977.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/4819677, {"references":["Verhoeff, C. (1898) Beitrage zur Kenntnis palaarktischer Myriopoden. VI. Uber palaarktische Geophiliden. Archiv fur Naturgeschichte, 64, 335 - 362.","Weidner, H. (1960) Die Entomologischen Sammlungen des Zoologischen Staatsinstituts und Zoologischen Museums Hamburg. III. Teil Chilopoda und Progoneata. Mitteilungen des Hamburger Zoologischen Museums Hamburg, 58, 57 - 104.","Bonato, L., Zapparoli, M. & Minelli, A. (2008) Morphology, taxonomy and distribution of Diphyonyx gen. n., a lineage of geophilid centipedes with unusually shaped claws (Chilopoda: Geophilidae). European Journal of Entomology, 105, 343 - 353. https: // doi. org / 10.14411 / eje. 2008.041"]}

24. Geophilus fossuliferus Karsch, 1884 Karsch 1884 a: 56���57, plate 14, figs. 39, 40 (as Geophilus fossuliferus n. spec.) Type locality and specimens. Vaterland [Homeland]: S. Thom��. [S��o Tom��]. Dimensions. K��rperl��nge [body length] 36 mm bei 67 Beinpaaren [leg pairs]. Type material. Syntypes 3 (ZMH-A0000560-561, ZMH-A00006387). S��O TOM�� AND PR��NCIPE: S��o Tom�� (city) [0��20���10������N, 6��43���50������E]. Preservation. 2 jars (Second jar with two vials and microvials). Jar 1 (ZMH-A 0000560): Label 1. Geophilus fossuliferus Karsch, Original, Coll. Greef, Mus. Marburg d. 1.IX.1901, St Thom��; Label 2. Geophilus fossuliferus n. sp. Karsch. St. Thom��; Label 3. Lectotype + 2 paratypes Karsch Geophilus fossuliferus Karsch, ���desig.: R. Crabill, 12. V.60, Hamburg���, Nota: When found this date, anterior part of paratype ���B��� was missing, having been removed by some prior person, possibly by Karsch. This part is apparently lost. (See above). Head and mouthparts of Lectotype are on separate microscope slide, ♀. v. Present opinion: G. fossuliferus Karsch lectotype is referable as junior synonym to Mecistocephalus maxillaris (Gervais). Paratype ���A��� is evidently junior synonym of Mecis. insularis (Lucas).��� R. Crabill, 12. V.60. (Crabill handwriting). Jar 2 (ZMH-A 0000561, ZMH-A 00006387): Label 1. HAMBURG SYNTYPES, Geophilus fossuliferus Karsch (= Mecistocephalus) (typed on a label with the imprint: U.S. N.M. Collection); Label 2. These Specimens do not agree with the original description. REC: Nov. 63; Vial 1. Label 1. Syntype Geophilus fossuliferus Karsch; Microvial 1. Label 1. PARATYPE ���A���, REC.: 12. V.60; Vial 2. Label 1. Syntype Geophilus fossuliferus Karsch, Coll. Greef, Mus. Marburg, St. Thom��, 1.IX.1901 dedit (handwriting on a label with the imprint: det R.E. Crabill); Microvial 2. Label 1. LECTOTYPE Rec: 12. V.60. Old type catalogue. Weidner (1960), p. 62, No. 15. Syntypes 3. Type status. Karsch (1884) did not specify the number of specimens in his original description. 3 microscope slides are held at the ZMH (note on file card: ���3 Pr��p. Lectotype, Crabill rev. et pr��p. Mai 1960.���). All specimens are syntypes. Additional type material. There is another specimen from S��o Tom�� and Pr��ncipe at the ZMB (no. 928). All listed specimens are syntypes. Collection remarks. The specimens came from the Collection Greef at the Museum Marburg (Zoologische Sammlung der Universit��t Marburg). Taxonomic remarks. This species is almost certainly misplaced in Geophilus. According to Minelli (pers. com.) Crabill never published his identification of this nominal species as a Mecistocephalus. We provisionally list it under this genus although the taxonomic transfer is pending. Current systematic position. Geophilus fossuliferus Karsch, 1884 (uncertain identity)., Published as part of Thofern, Detlef, Dup��rr��, Nadine & Harms, Danilo, 2021, An annotated type catalogue of the centipedes (Myriapoda: Chilopoda) held in the Zoological Museum Hamburg, pp. 1-103 in Zootaxa 4977 (1) on pages 25-26, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4977.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/4819677, {"references":["Karsch, F. (1884) Myriapoda. In: Greeff, R. (Ed.), Sitzungsberichte der Gesellschaft zur Beforderung der gesamten Naturwissenschaften zu Marburg, 2, pp. 55 - 59.","Weidner, H. (1960) Die Entomologischen Sammlungen des Zoologischen Staatsinstituts und Zoologischen Museums Hamburg. III. Teil Chilopoda und Progoneata. Mitteilungen des Hamburger Zoologischen Museums Hamburg, 58, 57 - 104."]}

5. Geophilus michaelseni Attems, 190��3 Attems 1903b: 245���246, plate 14, figs. 39, 40 (as Geophilus (Eurytion) michaelseni n. sp.); see also Attems 1903a: 80 Type locality and specimens. Fundort [locality]: Valparaiso (G��rten [gardens] und Vi��a del mar., Dr. Michaelsen coll.). Dimensions. L��nge [length] 45 mm. ♂ mit 63���67, ♀ mit 73 Beinpaaren [leg pairs]. Type material. Syntypes 3 (ZMH-A0000559, ZMH-A0006384). CHILE: Valparaiso [ca. 33��03���S, 71��37���W]; (ZMH-A0000562), Valparaiso, Vi��a del mar [ca. 33��00���S, 71��31���W]. Preservation. 2 jars. Jar 1 (ZMH-A 0000559, ZMH-A 0006348): Label 1. 12. Valparaiso, G��rten. Coll. Michaelsen. 14. V.93; Label 2. SYNTYPES Geophilus michaelseni Attems Chile: Valparaiso; Label 3. Head, mouthparts, and posterior trunk segments of body of specimen ���A��� evidently removed by Attems.��� R. Crabill, 1962. Jar 2 (ZMH-A 0000562): Label 1. Geophilus Michaelseni Att. Typus. Coll. Michaelsen 9. VI.93 Valparaiso; Label 2. Valparaiso, Vi��a del mar. Coll. Michaelsen. 9. VI.93; Label 3. Vorsicht! 2 Exemplare in St��cken! Old type catalogue. Weidner (1960), p. 62, No. 19. Syntypes 3. Type status. Attems (1903b) did not give the number of specimens in his original description. Weidner (1960: 62) listed 3 syntypes and 3 microscope slides at the ZMH (note on file card: ���1 Pr��p., 1 Syntypus B, Chile, Valpara��so Attems det.; Crabill rev. 1961; 2 Pr��p., (Typen?) Chile, Coqurimbo, 2.6.1906, R. Paessler.���). All specimens are syntypes. Collection remarks. The specimens were collected by Wilhelm Michaelsen during his expedition to the southern tip of South America 1892���93. Current systematic position. Plateurytion michaelseni (Attems, 1903); transferred to to this genus by Bonato et al. (2007: 6)., Published as part of Thofern, Detlef, Dup��rr��, Nadine & Harms, Danilo, 2021, An annotated type catalogue of the centipedes (Myriapoda: Chilopoda) held in the Zoological Museum Hamburg, pp. 1-103 in Zootaxa 4977 (1) on page 14, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4977.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/4819677, {"references":["Attems, C. (1903 b) Synopsis der Geophiliden. Zoologische Jahrbucher. Abteilung fur Systematik, 18, 155 - 302.","Attems, C. (1903 a) Beitrage zur Myriopodenkunde. Zoologische Jahrbucher. Abteilung fur Systematik, 18, 63 - 154.","Crabill Jr., R. E. (1962) Concerning chilopod types in the British Museum (Natural History). Part I. Chilopoda: Geophilomorpha: Scolopendromorpha. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 13, 505 - 510. https: // doi. org / 10.1080 / 00222936208651277","Weidner, H. (1960) Die Entomologischen Sammlungen des Zoologischen Staatsinstituts und Zoologischen Museums Hamburg. III. Teil Chilopoda und Progoneata. Mitteilungen des Hamburger Zoologischen Museums Hamburg, 58, 57 - 104.","Bonato, L., Pereira, L. A. & Minelli, A. (2007) Taxonomic and nomenclatural notes on the centipede genera Chomatobius, Ityphilus, Hapleurytion, Plateurytion, and Steneurytion (Chilopoda: Geophilomorpha). Zootaxa, 1485 (1), 1 - 12. https: // doi. org / 10.11646 / zootaxa. 1485.1.1"]}

8. Geophilus (Pachymerium) corralinus Attems, 190��3 Attems 1903b: 253���254, plate 14, figs. 33���38 (as Geophilus (Pachymerium) corralinus n. sp.); see also Attems 1903a: 80 Type locality and specimens. Fundort [locality]: Corral (Dr. Plate); Valparaiso (Salto und Vi��a del mar), Valdivia (Estancilla und Putabla), Corral, Wald unter Steinen [forest under rocks] (Dr. Michaelsen). Dimensions. L��nge 68 mm, Breite 2,5 mm, vorn am breitesten. 61���65 Beinpaare bei ♂ und ♀ [Length 68 mm, width 2.5 mm, max. width in front. 61���65 leg pairs for ♂ and ♀]. Type material. Syntypes 4. CHILE: (ZMH-A0000554), Valparaiso (Arroya del Salto) [ca. 33��35���S; 71��31���W]; (ZMH-A0000555), Valdivia Province, Corral [ca. 39��52���S, 73��26���W]; (ZMH-A0004210), Valdivia, Estancilla (Teja Island) [ca. 39��48���S, 73��15���W]; (ZMH-A0004211), Valdivia, Putabla [ca. 39��41���S, 73��02���W]. Preservation. 4 jars (second jar with a vial). Jar 1 (ZMH-A 0000554): Label. Geophilus (Pachymerium) corralinus Att. Coll. Michaelsen 20. V.93. Salto Valparaiso. Jar 2 (ZMH-A 0000555): Label. Geophilus (Pachymerium) corralinus Att. Typus. Coll. Michaelsen 5. VII.93. Corral, Wald, unter Steinen. Vial 1: Label. PARATYPE Geophilus corralinus Att. (= Chilenophilus corralinus). det. R. Crabill 6. V.60. Dissected, 6. V.60; R. Crabill. Hamburg. Jar 3 (ZMH-A 0004210) Label. Geophilus corralinus Att. Coll. Michaelsen 09.IV.93. Valvidia, Estancilla. N.B. Should be checked is probably a paratype. R. Crabill-6. V.60. Jar 4. (ZMH-A 0004211) Label. Geophilus corralinus Att. Coll. Michaelsen 29.IV.93. Valvidia, Putabla. Old type catalogue. Weidner (1960), p. 62, No. 12. Holotype and paratypes (number not specified). Type status. Attems (1903b) did not state the number of specimens in his description. Weidner (1960: 62) listed a holotype from Corral and 1 paratype from Valpara��so which are reinterpreted here as syntypes. Additional type material. Type material, including microscope slides, from South America, Chile: Valdivia, Estancielle (coll. W. Michaelsen; NHMW no. 6139) and Corral (coll. L Plate October 1894, don. L. Plate; no. 6140) are held at the NHMW. These specimens are also syntypes. Ilie et al. (2009: 21���22) noted: ���revised by Ralph E. Crabill, who prepared the microslide. Two further female syntypes from Corral, collected by Ludwig Plate, are stored in the ZMB (Moritz & Fischer 1973: 341; no. 2916) and syntypes (incorrectly indicated as holotype and paratypoid) from Corral, Valpara��so and Valdivia are preserved in the ZMH (Weidner 1960: 62)���. Collection remarks. All specimens were collected by Wilhelm Michaelsen during his expedition to the southern tip of South America 1892���93. Taxonomic remarks. Considered a junior synonym of Pachymerinus millepunctatus (Gervais, 1947) by Silvestri (1905: 757) but actually a distinct species (Bonato et al. 2016). Current systematic position. Chilenophilus corralinus (Attems, 1903); transferred to this genus by Attems (1909: 27)., Published as part of Thofern, Detlef, Dup��rr��, Nadine & Harms, Danilo, 2021, An annotated type catalogue of the centipedes (Myriapoda: Chilopoda) held in the Zoological Museum Hamburg, pp. 1-103 in Zootaxa 4977 (1) on pages 15-16, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4977.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/4819677, {"references":["Attems, C. (1903 b) Synopsis der Geophiliden. Zoologische Jahrbucher. Abteilung fur Systematik, 18, 155 - 302.","Attems, C. (1903 a) Beitrage zur Myriopodenkunde. Zoologische Jahrbucher. Abteilung fur Systematik, 18, 63 - 154.","Weidner, H. (1960) Die Entomologischen Sammlungen des Zoologischen Staatsinstituts und Zoologischen Museums Hamburg. III. Teil Chilopoda und Progoneata. Mitteilungen des Hamburger Zoologischen Museums Hamburg, 58, 57 - 104.","Ilie, V., Schiller, E. & Stagl, V. (2009) The specimens of the Geophilomorpha (Chilopoda) in the Natural History Museum in Vienna. Katalog der wissenschaftlichen Sammlungen des Naturhistorischen Museums in Wien, Myriapoda, 22, 1 - 75.","Silvestri, F. (1905) Fauna Chilensis. Myriapoda. Zoologische Jahrbuche r, Abteilung fur Systematik (Supplement-Band), 6, 715 - 772.","Bonato, L, Chagas Jr., A, Edgecombe, G. D., Lewis, J. G. E., Minelli, A, Pereira, L. A., Shelley, R. M., Stoev, P. & Zapparoli, M. (2016) ChiloBase 2.0 - A World Catalogue of Centipedes (Chilopoda). Available from: http: // chilobase. biologia. unipd. it (12 Feburary 2021)","Attems, C. G. (1909) Myriapoden. In: Schultze, L. (Ed.), Zoologische und Arthropologische Ergebnisse einer Forschungsreise im Westlichen und Zentralen Sudafrika, ausgefuhrt in den Jahren 1903 - 1905. Denkschriften der Medicinisch-Naturwissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft zu Jena, 14, 1 - 52."]}

9. Geophilus flavidus trebevicensis Verhoeff, 1898 Verhoeff 1898: 350, 353���354, (as G. flavidus, trebevicensis mihi. [? = carinthiacus Latzel]) Type locality and specimens. No locality data. Dimensions. ♀ 23���31 mm. lg. [length] 55���59 Beinpaare [leg pairs]. ♂ 24���28 mm. lg. 51���53 Beinpaare. Type material. Syntypes 1♂, 1♀ (ZMH-A0000556, ZMH-A0006386). BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA: Bosnia (region) [ca. 43��52���N, 18��25���E]. Preservation. 1 jar: Label. Geophilus flavidus trebevicensis Verh, ex typis, Verhoeff v. 1.I.1898, Bosnien. Old type catalogue. Weidner (1960), p. 62, No. 14. Paratypes 2. Type status. Verhoeff (1898) did not state the number of specimens in his original description. All specimens are syntypes. Additional remarks. Weidner (1960: 62) noted that the specimens were purchased from Verhoeff. Current systematic position. Junior synonym of Clinopodes carinthiacus (Latzel, 1880); see Bonato et al. (2011: 180). 10��. Geophilus hartmeyeri Attems, 1911 Attems 1911a: 158���160, figs. 11, 12 (as Geophilus hartmeryeri n. sp.) Type locality and specimens. Fundnotizen [locality notes]: Station 5 und 65, Denham, am Ebbestrand und auf dem Lande [at the seashore and on land]; Station 80, Eradu; Station 165, Albany. Dimensions. L��nge [length] ca. 24 mm. Zahl der Beinpaare [leg pairs] 43���59 (resp. bei ♂ und ♀ beobachtet 45���57 [esp. for ♂ and ♀ 45���57 leg pairs observed]). Type material. Syntypes 4 (ZMH-A0000564, ZMH-A0006389���6391). AUSTRALIA: Western Australia, Denham (station 65) [ca. 25��55���S, 113��32���E]. Preservation. 1 jar: Label 1. Hamb.S.W.Austral.Exp. 1905, 65 Denham, 9. u. 11. VI. (imprint), Im Stadion am Strd; Label 2. Geophilus hartmeyeri Att. Typen, Coll. Michaelsen 1905, W.Austral; Label 3. Lectotype + 3 paratypes Geophilus hartmeyeri Attems, desig.: Crabill, 12. V.60, Hamburg. Nota: Head and mouthparts of Lectotype missing as of this date. They are almost surely in Vienna, Attems Collection. See parts of lectotype and paratype ���A��� on microslides in Hamburg Collection. R. Crabill, 12. V.60. Old type catalogues. Weidner (1960), p. 62, No. 16. Syntypes 3, paratype 1. Type status. Attems (1911a) did not state the number of specimens in his description. Weidner (1960: 62) listed 3 syntypes from Denham and 1 paratype from Eradu. 2 microscope slides are also held at the ZMH (note on file card: ���1 Pr��p. Paratype und 1 Pr��p. Lectotype, desig.: Crabill 12.5.1960, ohne Fundort [no locality data].���). We consider the present specimens syntypes. Additional type material. Type material (syntypes) from Denham, Sharks Bay and Albany is also present at the NHMW (no. 2006, 2007) and the ZMB. Ilie et al. (2009: 33) noted ��� 3 syntypes from the location Eradu are stored in the ZMH (Weidner 1960: 62) and 4 from Denham in the ZMB (Moritz & Fischer 1973: 343; no. 5147)���. Note also that the species is considered conspecific with either Tuoba laticeps (Pocock, 1891) (Crabill 1962, 1968a; Jones 1998) or Tuoba sydneyensis (Pocock, 1891) (Crabill 1968a; Jones 1998). Collection remarks. The specimens were collected by Wilhelm Michaelsen during his expedition to Western Australia 1905. The specimens from Denham (station 65) were apparently collected in some distance from the seashore in a stadium ��� Im Stadion am Strd. ���. Taxonomic remarks. Crabill (1968b) synonymized the type series with both Tubuoa laticeps (Pocock, 1891) and T. sydneyensis (Pocock, 1891) (���= laticeps, q.v., part., and sydneyensis q.v., part. New Synonymies and Combinations���). Jones (1998) followed Crabill in his review of Tubuoa. The species is listed as valid by Bonato et al. (2016) but falls into the synonymy of T. laticeps. Current systematic position. Junior synonym of Tuoba laticeps (in part) and T. sydneyensis (in part). 10��. Geophilus hartmeyeri Attems, 1911 Attems 1911a: 158���160, figs. 11, 12 (as Geophilus hartmeryeri n. sp.) Type locality and specimens. Fundnotizen [locality notes]: Station 5 und 65, Denham, am Ebbestrand und auf dem Lande [at the seashore and on land]; Station 80, Eradu; Station 165, Albany. Dimensions. L��nge [length] ca. 24 mm. Zahl der Beinpaare [leg pairs] 43���59 (resp. bei ♂ und ♀ beobachtet 45���57 [esp. for ♂ and ♀ 45���57 leg pairs observed]). Type material. Syntypes 4 (ZMH-A0000564, ZMH-A0006389���6391). AUSTRALIA: Western Australia, Denham (station 65) [ca. 25��55���S, 113��32���E]. Preservation. 1 jar: Label 1. Hamb.S.W.Austral.Exp. 1905, 65 Denham, 9. u. 11. VI. (imprint), Im Stadion am Strd; Label 2. Geophilus hartmeyeri Att. Typen, Coll. Michaelsen 1905, W.Austral; Label 3. Lectotype + 3 paratypes Geophilus hartmeyeri Attems, desig.: Crabill, 12. V.60, Hamburg. Nota: Head and mouthparts of Lectotype missing as of this date. They are almost surely in Vienna, Attems Collection. See parts of lectotype and paratype ���A��� on microslides in Hamburg Collection. R. Crabill, 12. V.60. Old type catalogues. Weidner (1960), p. 62, No. 16. Syntypes 3, paratype 1. Type status. Attems (1911a) did not state the number of specimens in his description. Weidner (1960: 62) listed 3 syntypes from Denham and 1 paratype from Eradu. 2 microscope slides are also held at the ZMH (note on file card: ���1 Pr��p. Paratype und 1 Pr��p. Lectotype, desig.: Crabill 12.5.1960, ohne Fundort [no locality data].���). We consider the present specimens syntypes. Additional type material. Type material (syntypes) from Denham, Sharks Bay and Albany is also present at the NHMW (no. 2006, 2007) and the ZMB. Ilie et al. (2009: 33) noted ��� 3 syntypes from the location Eradu are stored in the ZMH (Weidner 1960: 62) and 4 from Denham in the ZMB (Moritz & Fischer 1973: 343; no. 5147)���. Note also that the species is considered conspecific with either Tuoba laticeps (Pocock, 1891) (Crabill 1962, 1968a; Jones 1998) or Tuoba sydneyensis (Pocock, 1891) (Crabill 1968a; Jones 1998). Collection remarks. The specimens were collected by Wilhelm Michaelsen during his expedition to Western Australia 1905. The specimens from Denham (station 65) were apparently collected in some distance from the seashore in a stadium ��� Im Stadion am Strd. ���. Taxonomic remarks. Crabill (1968b) synonymized the type series with both Tubuoa laticeps (Pocock, 1891) and T. sydneyensis (Pocock, 1891) (���= laticeps, q.v., part., and sydneyensis q.v., part. New Synonymies and Combinations���). Jones (1998) followed Crabill in his review of Tubuoa. The species is listed as valid by Bonato et al. (2016) but falls into the synonymy of T. laticeps. Current systematic position. Junior synonym of Tuoba laticeps (in part) and T. sydneyensis (in part)., Published as part of Thofern, Detlef, Dup��rr��, Nadine & Harms, Danilo, 2021, An annotated type catalogue of the centipedes (Myriapoda: Chilopoda) held in the Zoological Museum Hamburg, pp. 1-103 in Zootaxa 4977 (1) on pages 16-17, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4977.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/4819677, {"references":["Verhoeff, C. (1898) Beitrage zur Kenntnis palaarktischer Myriopoden. VI. Uber palaarktische Geophiliden. Archiv fur Naturgeschichte, 64, 335 - 362.","Weidner, H. (1960) Die Entomologischen Sammlungen des Zoologischen Staatsinstituts und Zoologischen Museums Hamburg. III. Teil Chilopoda und Progoneata. Mitteilungen des Hamburger Zoologischen Museums Hamburg, 58, 57 - 104.","Bonato, L., Iorio, E. & Minelli, A. (2011) The centipede genus Clinopodes C. L. Koch, 1847 (Chilopoda, Geophilomorpha, Geophilidae): reassessment of species diversity and distribution, with a new species from the Maritime Alps (France). Zoosystema, 33, 175 - 205. https: // doi. org / 10.5252 / z 2011 n 2 a 3","Attems, C. (1911 a) Myriopoda exkl. Scolopendridae. In: Michaelsen, W. & Hartmeyer, R. (Eds.), Die Fauna Sudwest-Australiens. Ergebnisse der Hamburger sudwest-australischen Forschungsreise 1905. Band III, Lieferung 6, Gustav Fischer, Jena, pp. 145 - 204.","Ilie, V., Schiller, E. & Stagl, V. (2009) The specimens of the Geophilomorpha (Chilopoda) in the Natural History Museum in Vienna. Katalog der wissenschaftlichen Sammlungen des Naturhistorischen Museums in Wien, Myriapoda, 22, 1 - 75.","Pocock, R. I. (1891) On the Myriopoda of Burma. Part 2. Report upon the Chilopoda collected by Sig. L. Fea and Mr. E. W. Oates. Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova, 10, 401 - 432.","Crabill Jr., R. E. (1962) Concerning chilopod types in the British Museum (Natural History). Part I. Chilopoda: Geophilomorpha: Scolopendromorpha. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 13, 505 - 510. https: // doi. org / 10.1080 / 00222936208651277","Crabill Jr., R. E. (1968 a) Concerning the evolution of the Oryidae with description of a primitive new genus (Chilopoda: Geophilomorpha: Oryidae). Entomologische Mitteilungen aus dem Zoologischen Staatsinstitut und Zoologischen Museum, Hamburg, 61, 243 - 248.","Jones, R. E. (1998) On the species of Tuoba (Chilopoda: Geophilomorpha) in Australia, New Zealand, New Caledonia, Solomon Islands and New Britain. Record of the Western Australian Museum, 18, 333 - 346.","Crabill Jr., R. E. (1968 b) On the true identities of Tuoba and Nesogeophilus (Chilopoda: Geophilomorpha: Geophilidae). Proceedings of the Entomological Society of London, 70, 345.","Bonato, L, Chagas Jr., A, Edgecombe, G. D., Lewis, J. G. E., Minelli, A, Pereira, L. A., Shelley, R. M., Stoev, P. & Zapparoli, M. (2016) ChiloBase 2.0 - A World Catalogue of Centipedes (Chilopoda). Available from: http: // chilobase. biologia. unipd. it (12 Feburary 2021)"]}

144. Geophilus curtipes Haase, 1887 Haase 1887: 109-110, plate VI, fig. 114 (as Geophilus curtipes nov. spec.) Type locality and specimens. Australia, Queensland, Rockhampton (as Patria: Australia). Dimensions. L��nge des K��rpers 45 mm, gr��sste Breite 1,4 mm [body 45 mm long, maximum width 1,4 mm]. Type material. Holotype ♀. AUSTRALIA: Queensland, Rockhampton [ca. 23��22���S, 150��30���E]. Old type catalogue: Weidner (1960), p. 62, No. 13. Holotype. Collection remarks. The specimen was almost certainly collected by Amalie Dietrich in 1866 before she travelled to Mackay in 1887. The specimen comes from the Museum Godeffroy. Additional remarks. The specimen was already missing in 1938 (Weidner 1960). Current systematic position. Geomerinus curtipes (Haase, 1887), transferred by Br��lemann (1912: 66)., Published as part of Thofern, Detlef, Dup��rr��, Nadine & Harms, Danilo, 2021, An annotated type catalogue of the centipedes (Myriapoda: Chilopoda) held in the Zoological Museum Hamburg, pp. 1-103 in Zootaxa 4977 (1) on page 83, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4977.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/4819677, {"references":["Haase, E. (1887) Die Indisch-Australischen Myriopoden. Pt. I. Chilopoden. Abhandlungen und Berichte des Koniglichen Zoologischen und Anthropologisch-Ethnographischen Museums zu Dresden, 1, 1 - 118.","Weidner, H. (1960) Die Entomologischen Sammlungen des Zoologischen Staatsinstituts und Zoologischen Museums Hamburg. III. Teil Chilopoda und Progoneata. Mitteilungen des Hamburger Zoologischen Museums Hamburg, 58, 57 - 104."]}

10��. Geophilus hartmeyeri Attems, 1911 Attems 1911a: 158���160, figs. 11, 12 (as Geophilus hartmeryeri n. sp.) Type locality and specimens. Fundnotizen [locality notes]: Station 5 und 65, Denham, am Ebbestrand und auf dem Lande [at the seashore and on land]; Station 80, Eradu; Station 165, Albany. Dimensions. L��nge [length] ca. 24 mm. Zahl der Beinpaare [leg pairs] 43���59 (resp. bei ♂ und ♀ beobachtet 45���57 [esp. for ♂ and ♀ 45���57 leg pairs observed]). Type material. Syntypes 4 (ZMH-A0000564, ZMH-A0006389���6391). AUSTRALIA: Western Australia, Denham (station 65) [ca. 25��55���S, 113��32���E]. Preservation. 1 jar: Label 1. Hamb.S.W.Austral.Exp. 1905, 65 Denham, 9. u. 11. VI. (imprint), Im Stadion am Strd; Label 2. Geophilus hartmeyeri Att. Typen, Coll. Michaelsen 1905, W.Austral; Label 3. Lectotype + 3 paratypes Geophilus hartmeyeri Attems, desig.: Crabill, 12. V.60, Hamburg. Nota: Head and mouthparts of Lectotype missing as of this date. They are almost surely in Vienna, Attems Collection. See parts of lectotype and paratype ���A��� on microslides in Hamburg Collection. R. Crabill, 12. V.60. Old type catalogues. Weidner (1960), p. 62, No. 16. Syntypes 3, paratype 1. Type status. Attems (1911a) did not state the number of specimens in his description. Weidner (1960: 62) listed 3 syntypes from Denham and 1 paratype from Eradu. 2 microscope slides are also held at the ZMH (note on file card: ���1 Pr��p. Paratype und 1 Pr��p. Lectotype, desig.: Crabill 12.5.1960, ohne Fundort [no locality data].���). We consider the present specimens syntypes. Additional type material. Type material (syntypes) from Denham, Sharks Bay and Albany is also present at the NHMW (no. 2006, 2007) and the ZMB. Ilie et al. (2009: 33) noted ��� 3 syntypes from the location Eradu are stored in the ZMH (Weidner 1960: 62) and 4 from Denham in the ZMB (Moritz & Fischer 1973: 343; no. 5147)���. Note also that the species is considered conspecific with either Tuoba laticeps (Pocock, 1891) (Crabill 1962, 1968a; Jones 1998) or Tuoba sydneyensis (Pocock, 1891) (Crabill 1968a; Jones 1998). Collection remarks. The specimens were collected by Wilhelm Michaelsen during his expedition to Western Australia 1905. The specimens from Denham (station 65) were apparently collected in some distance from the seashore in a stadium ��� Im Stadion am Strd. ���. Taxonomic remarks. Crabill (1968b) synonymized the type series with both Tubuoa laticeps (Pocock, 1891) and T. sydneyensis (Pocock, 1891) (���= laticeps, q.v., part., and sydneyensis q.v., part. New Synonymies and Combinations���). Jones (1998) followed Crabill in his review of Tubuoa. The species is listed as valid by Bonato et al. (2016) but falls into the synonymy of T. laticeps. Current systematic position. Junior synonym of Tuoba laticeps (in part) and T. sydneyensis (in part)., Published as part of Thofern, Detlef, Dup��rr��, Nadine & Harms, Danilo, 2021, An annotated type catalogue of the centipedes (Myriapoda: Chilopoda) held in the Zoological Museum Hamburg, pp. 1-103 in Zootaxa 4977 (1) on pages 16-17, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4977.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/4819677, {"references":["Attems, C. (1911 a) Myriopoda exkl. Scolopendridae. In: Michaelsen, W. & Hartmeyer, R. (Eds.), Die Fauna Sudwest-Australiens. Ergebnisse der Hamburger sudwest-australischen Forschungsreise 1905. Band III, Lieferung 6, Gustav Fischer, Jena, pp. 145 - 204.","Weidner, H. (1960) Die Entomologischen Sammlungen des Zoologischen Staatsinstituts und Zoologischen Museums Hamburg. III. Teil Chilopoda und Progoneata. Mitteilungen des Hamburger Zoologischen Museums Hamburg, 58, 57 - 104.","Ilie, V., Schiller, E. & Stagl, V. (2009) The specimens of the Geophilomorpha (Chilopoda) in the Natural History Museum in Vienna. Katalog der wissenschaftlichen Sammlungen des Naturhistorischen Museums in Wien, Myriapoda, 22, 1 - 75.","Pocock, R. I. (1891) On the Myriopoda of Burma. Part 2. Report upon the Chilopoda collected by Sig. L. Fea and Mr. E. W. Oates. Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova, 10, 401 - 432.","Crabill Jr., R. E. (1962) Concerning chilopod types in the British Museum (Natural History). Part I. Chilopoda: Geophilomorpha: Scolopendromorpha. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 13, 505 - 510. https: // doi. org / 10.1080 / 00222936208651277","Crabill Jr., R. E. (1968 a) Concerning the evolution of the Oryidae with description of a primitive new genus (Chilopoda: Geophilomorpha: Oryidae). Entomologische Mitteilungen aus dem Zoologischen Staatsinstitut und Zoologischen Museum, Hamburg, 61, 243 - 248.","Jones, R. E. (1998) On the species of Tuoba (Chilopoda: Geophilomorpha) in Australia, New Zealand, New Caledonia, Solomon Islands and New Britain. Record of the Western Australian Museum, 18, 333 - 346.","Crabill Jr., R. E. (1968 b) On the true identities of Tuoba and Nesogeophilus (Chilopoda: Geophilomorpha: Geophilidae). Proceedings of the Entomological Society of London, 70, 345.","Bonato, L, Chagas Jr., A, Edgecombe, G. D., Lewis, J. G. E., Minelli, A, Pereira, L. A., Shelley, R. M., Stoev, P. & Zapparoli, M. (2016) ChiloBase 2.0 - A World Catalogue of Centipedes (Chilopoda). Available from: http: // chilobase. biologia. unipd. it (12 Feburary 2021)"]}

Geophilus sp. New records: 1♂, Pole-zangoleh (Mazandaran Province); 1♂, 1 ex., Razmian, Alamut Mountains (Qazvin Province). Notes. The species identity of these specimens is uncertain.

Geophilus gigas Attems, 1951 * Geophilus gigas Attems, 1951: 392 Literature records. Attems (1951): Koohrang Mountains (Zagros Mountains), west of Isfahan (Isfahan Province) [���Kuh-r��ng-Gebirge, westlisch von Isfahan ���]; Ghori Gol (East Azerbaijan Province) [���Vogelsee, Aserbeidschan���]. Zarei et al. (2013): 1♀, Alasht (Mazandaran province); 1♂, Dizin (Alborz Province); 1♀, Fasham, (Tehran Prov- ince). Distribution: Iran. Notes. The morphology of this species has been redescribed and illustrated in detail by Zarei et al. (2013), based on one of the syntypes and other specimens., Published as part of Zarei, Roghaieh, Rahimian, Hassan, Mirmonsef, Hassan & Bonato, Lucio, 2020, Geophilomorpha from Alborz Mountains and a checklist of Chilopoda from Iran, pp. 132-146 in Zootaxa 4780 (1) on page 136, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4780.1.6, http://zenodo.org/record/3839630, {"references":["Attems, C. (1951) Ergebnisse der Osterreichischen Iran-Expedition 1949 / 50. Myriapoden vom Iran gesammelt von der Expedition Heinz Loeffler und Genossen 1949 / 50. Sitzungsberichte der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 160, 387 - 426.","Zarei, R., Rahimian, H. & Bonato, L. (2013) Morphology of a neglected large-sized species of Geophilus from Iran (Chilopoda: Geophilidae). Zootaxa, 3736 (5), 486 - 500. https: // doi. org / 10.11646 / zootaxa. 3736.5.4"]}

aztecus Humbert & Saussure, 1869: 159 [Geophilus]. Mexico orientalis. Unspecified series. Saussure & Humbert (1872) gave a more detailed redescription. The MHNG collection contains parts of two specimens in alcohol under the name Geophilus aztecus. Dissected parts are secured in a separate vial. A label in the jar reads “ Geophilus aztecus Sss. et H., type!, Mexique ” indicating that they are syntypes. Geophilus aztecus Humbert & Saussure, 1869, Published as part of Hollier, John & Stagl, Verena, 2016, The Chilopoda (Myriapoda) described by Aloïs Humbert, Henri de Saussure and Leo Zehntner, pp. 227-233 in Revue suisse de Zoologie 123 (2) on page 228, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.155167, {"references":["Humbert A., Saussure H. de 1869. Myriapoda nova Americana. Revue et Magasin de Zoologie pure et appliquee 21: 149 - 159.","Saussure H. de, Humbert A. 1872. Etudes sur les Myriapodes. In: Milne Edwards H. (ed.). Mission scientifique au Mexique et dans l'Amerique Centrale, ouvrage publie par ordre du Ministre de l'Instruction Publique. Recherches Zoologiques, publiees sous la direction de M. Milne Edwards, Membre de l'Institut. Sixieme partie, seconde section. Paris, Imprimerie Nationale, 211 pp."]}

Geophilus cf. procerus C.L. Koch, 1878 REMARKS. This species was recorded from Kazakhstan by a single specimen collected in Almaty City (Almaty Region) (Lignau, 1929)., Published as part of Dyachkov, Yu. V. & Tuf, I. H., 2019, NEW DATA ON THE FAMILY GEOPHILIDAE LEACH, 1815 (CHILOPODA: GEOPHILOMORPHA) FROM KAZAKHSTAN, pp. 24-28 in Far Eastern Entomologist 391 on page 26, DOI: 10.25221/fee.391.2, http://zenodo.org/record/7164692

A new geophilomorph centipede, Geophilus hadesi sp. n., is described from caves in the Velebit Mountain, central Croatia. Together with Geophilus persephones Foddai & Minelli, 1999, described from Pierre Saint-Martin cave in France, they are the only two remarkably troglomorphic geophilomorphs hitherto known. The new species apparently belongs to a group of Geophilus species inhabiting mainly Western and Southern Europe, with a uniquely modified pretarsus in the second maxillae. Geophilus hadesi sp. n. shows unusual traits, some of which commonly found in troglobitic arthropods, including exceptionally elongated antennae, trunk segments and leg claws. The species is described upon specimens found in two caves at a depth below -250 m. Another two specimens apparently belonging to the same species have been recorded in another deep vertical cave at -980 m and -1100 m. The latter represents the world’s deepest record of Chilopoda as a whole.

Geophilus pygmaeus Latzel, 1880 Figs 1, 2 Geophilus pygmaeus Latzel 1880: 182, fig. 65; 1885: 39. Haase 1881: 83.? Daday 1889: 87. Attems 1895: 165; 1903: 222; 1926: 245, 343; 1929a: 174; 1929b: 280, 285, 287, 297; 1947: 111;? 1949: 86, 108; 1954: 292; 1959: 308. Verhoeff 1895: 353; 1896: 87; 1906: 207; 1908: 297; 1925: 618, 632, 634, 659;? 1934a: 116; 1938: 348.? Kimakowicz 1897: 99. Lucas 1898: 1062.? Diem 1903: 342.? Lignau 1905: 198. Depoli 1907: 87. Brolemann 1930: 34, 180. Schubart 1934: 80. Takakuwa 1940: 3. Folkmanov�� 1952: 182. Dobroruka 1961: 35. Matic 1966: 13. W��rmli 1972: 3. Minelli 1978a: 303; 1981: 90; 1982: 133; 1992: 169. Koren 1986: 25; 1999: 520. Minelli & Iovane 1987: 24, 31. Zapparoli 1989: 560, 579, 580, 581. Kos 1992a: 355; 1992b: 139; 1996a: 639; 1996b: 148.? Minelli & Zapparoli, 1992: 227. Foddai et al. 1995: 10. Christian 1996: 110. Stoev 1997: 103.? Wytwer 1997: 265, 267;? 2008: 331, 333.? Simaiakis et al. 2004: 403.? Spelda 2005: 104.? Tuf & La��ka 2005: 149. Iorio & Berg 2007: 35.? Tuf & Tufov�� 2008: 38. Geoffroy & Iorio 2009: 689. Ilie et al. 2009: 8. St��ckli 2009: 651. Danyi 2010: 20. Voigtl��nder et al. 2011: 104. Reip et al. 2012: 52, 55, 62, 78. Iorio 2014: 50. Bonato & Minelli 2014: 11, 33, 38, 39, 40, 45, 47, 86, 114. Moretto et al. 2015: 3. Geophilus pusillus pygmaeus��� Verhoeff 1898: 346; 1902: 91.? Vali�� 1902: 23;? 1904: 5. Geophilus larii Verhoeff 1934b: 14. Minelli 1978b: 157. Moritz & Fischer 1979: 345. Synonymy by Verhoeff (1938: 348). Geophilus pygmaeus pygmaeus��� Kaczmarek 1980: 21. Geophilus cf. larii��� Grgič & Kos 2003: 240. non Geophilus pygmaeus var. silesiacus Haase 1881: 83. non Geophilus pygmaeus styricus Verhoeff 1895: 353; 1896: 87. Lucas 1898: 1062. Attems 1929a: 174. Moritz & Fischer 1979: 350. Kos 1992b: 139. non Geophilus pygmaeus��� Attems 1902: 572. Verhoeff 1940: 8. Type localities. Two localities: Trnovski gozd (= Trnovo Forest Plateau), Slovenia; an uncertain locality in Carinthia, probably Loiblthal, Austria. The first type locality is indicated both in the original description (Latzel 1880: "Tarnowaner Wald bei G��rz" = Trnovo Forest Plateau, near Gorica; also reported as "K��stenlande" = Eastern Adriatic coastal region) and in the label associated with two syntypes (���Tarnowaner Wald���). The second type locality is indicated in the original description (Latzel 1880) only as " K��rnten " (= Carinthia), but a single locality "Loiblthal" is indicated by the same author when treating the fauna of Carinthia (Latzel 1885). Type material. A total of 18 syntypes were mentioned in the original description (Latzel 1880), including 6 adults of both sexes and 12 juveniles reported to have been found together with a female of Dicellophilus carniolensis (C.L. Koch). As far as we know, only 2 of the adults, one male and one female, are still in existence, in the Naturhistorisches Museum of Vienna (Ilie et al. 2009). Specimens examined. Syntype: ♀, 15.3 mm long, with 43 leg-bearing segments; Trnovski gozd, northern Dinarides; date and collector unknown; in ethanol, not dissected; NHMW 262. Specimens of a representative population: 43 specimens of both sexes, 4.8���19.3 mm long, with 41���45 legbearing segments; Ponte dei Ross, Val del Grisol, Zoldo Dolomites (46.26024��N; 12.20623��E); 5 Jun.���25 Sept. 2015, leg. E. Peretti; in ethanol, some of them dissected; PD5350, 5353, 5360, 5361, 5364, 5369, 5377, 5379, 5394, 5395, 5410, 5444���5446, 5448, 5451, 5453, 5454, 5456, 5482���5490, 5492, 5494, 5495, 5498, 5552, 5553, 5555, 5559���5561, 5564���5566, 5571, 5911. Other specimens from other localities: see Table 1. Diagnosis. A Geophilus species less than 20 mm long; usually 43 or 45 pairs of legs in the female, 41 or 43 pairs of legs in the male; head slightly longer than wide (length/width = ca. 1.1); antennae ca. 2 times as long as the head; no distinct clypeal areas; pretarsus of second maxillae subconic, curved, apically pointed (length/width = ca. 3); forcipular coxosternite relatively long (length/width of the exposed part = ca. 0.8); coxopleural sutures distinctly diverging forwards for the entire length; chitin-lines incomplete and pointing lateral to the condyles; basal denticle on the tarsungulum distinctly straight and pointed, about as long as wide; pore-fields well developed only in the anterior part of the trunk; carpophagus pits present; ultimate leg-bearing segment with entire pleuropretergite; in the adult, coxopleuron with usually 3 ventral pores opening separately, close to the margin of the metasternite, and a single smaller and isolated pore in the middle of the coxopleuron, positioned anteriorly with respect to the most posterior of the other pores; legs of the ultimate pair with well-developed curved claws. Among the other species of Geophilus living in Europe (Bonato & Minelli 2014), G. pygmaeus most closely resembles G. flavus, from which it differs mainly in some features of the antennae, the trunk metasternites and the coxal pores (Table 2). Adult female morphology. Description of an adult female (PD5451). See also Figs 1A���C, 2A���C. GENERAL FEATURES. Body relatively stout, ca. 12.7 mm long, reaching a maximum width of ca. 0.7 mm in legbearing segments 18���23, only slightly narrowing anteriorly and posteriorly, the first leg-bearing segment being ca. 0.5 mm and the ultimate ca. 0.3 mm wide. Most legs uniformly ca. 0.5 mm long, those of the most anterior pairs decreasing gradually anteriorly, the legs of the first pair being ca. 0.3 mm long. Color (in ethanol) almost uniformly brownish-yellow, only the forcipular segment and the head slightly darker. CEPHALIC CAPSULE. Cephalic plate subrectangular, ca. 1.1 times as long as wide, ca. 0.9 times as wide as the forcipular tergite, the lateral margins moderately convex; frontal line absent. Clypeus uniformly areolate, without clypeal areas and without plagulae; lateral margins complete; a total of 8 setae on the antero-medial part, arranged in 1 anterior pair, 1 intermediate pair, 2 posterior pairs in a transverse row. Labrum bearing two medial short tubercles distinctly sclerotized and lateral rows of bristles. ANTENNAE. Ca. 2.0 times as long as the head. Intermediate articles up to ca. 1.2 times as long as wide. Article XIV ca. 2.2 times as long as wide, ca. 2.3 times as long as article XIII. Apical sensilla ca. 12���15 ��m long, spearlike, without projections, only gently narrowing at about the mid-length. Club-like sensilla ca. 10 ��m long, only on article XIV, grouped on the distal parts of both the internal and external sides. A single sensillum, similar to the apical ones, shorter than 10 ��m long, close to the distal margin of articles V, IX and XIII, on both the dorso-external and the ventro-internal sides. MANDIBLES. A single pectinate lamella on each mandible. TABLE]. Publisheđ anđ new recorđs of Geophilus pygmaeus, incluđing publisheđ recorđs that we consiđeređ uncertain. The localities are orđeređ approximately West to East. Reasons for uncertainty: đoubt. = đoubts on the species iđentity were expresseđ by the same author/s; geogr. = the locality is outsiđe the known range of G. pygmaeus as đocumenteđ by other reliable recorđs, anđ no information is given in support of the species iđentity (criteria, sources anđ characters consiđeređ for iđentification); taxon. = the taxonomic concept of G. pygmaeus followeđ by the author/s was broađer than reviseđ here, encompassing possibly other species. ������continued on the next page TABLE]. (Continueđ) TABLE]. (Continueđ) code locality published source examined reliability reasons for uncertainty specimen/s 51 �� Steiermark: Bachern bei Marburg�� = Pohorje near Maribor Attems 1895: 165 - yes - (Slovenia) 52 ��Z���gr���b�� = Zagreb (Croatia) Dađay 1889: 87 - uncertain geogr., taxon. 53 ��okolo boskovsk��ho [...] Pođ hrađem�� = nearby the castle of Vali�� 1902: 23 (as G. - uncertain geogr. Boskovice (Czech Republic); also reporteđ by Vali�� (1904) as pusillus pygmaeus) ��Boskovicich�� = Boskovice. 54 ��Simonfa�� (Hungary); also reporteđ by Attems (1929a) as Dađay 1889: 87 - uncertain geogr., taxon. ��Somogy�� = Somogy County 55 ��Simontornya�� (Hungary); also reporteđ by Attems (1929a) as Dađay 1889: 87 - uncertain geogr., taxon. ��Tolna�� = Tolna County 56 ��Szerencs�� (Hungary); also reporteđ by Attems (1929a) as Dađay 1889: 87 - uncertain geogr., taxon. ��Comitaten Zempl��n�� = Borsođ-Aba���j-Zempl��n County 57 ��K.-Azar�� = Mal�� Ozorovce (Slovakia) Dađay 1889: 87 - uncertain geogr., taxon. 58 ��Cz��ke��= Cejkov (Slovakia) Dađay 1889: 87 - uncertain geogr., taxon. 59 ��Nagy-Mih���ly�� = Michalovce (Slovakia) Dađay 1889: 87 - uncertain geogr., taxon. 60 ��Pe��r�� = Pir (Romania); also reporteđ by Attems (1929a) as Dađay 1889: 87 - uncertain đoubt., geogr., taxon. ��Szilagy�� = Satu Mare 61 ��Irakleio: Agia Eirini�� = Heraklion: Agia Irini [����������ε����: �������� Simaiakis et al. 2004: 403 - uncertain geogr. ������������], in Crete (Greece) - ��SO - Alpen�� = South-Eastern Alps; also reporteđ by Moritz & Verhoeff 1934b: 14 (as G. - yes - Fischer (1979) as �� Friaul �� = Friuli (Italy) larii) - ��ganzen S��đostalpen vom Brescianergebiet im Westen bis nach Verhoeff 1938: 348 - yes - Krain im Osten�� = entire South-Eastern Alps between the surrounđings of Brescia in the West anđ the Carniola in the East (Italy, Austria, Slovenia) - ��alle spalle đi Vittorio Veneto (Treviso)�� = north of Vittorio Minelli 1982: 133 PD5923 anđ others yes - Veneto (Italy) - �� Istria �� (Slovenia or Croatia) Depoli 1907: 87 - yes - - �� Krim �� = Crimea (Ukraine) Lignau 1905: 198 - uncertain đoubt. FIRST MAXILLAE. Coxosternite entire, without mid-longitudinal sulcus, without setae. Coxal projection subtriangular, longer than wide. Telopodite composed of two articles, the basal one without setae, the distal one with 2���3 setae and ca. 2 spine-like sensilla. Coxosternal lappets short, telopodital lappets elongate. SECOND MAXILLAE. Coxosternite entire; anterior margin widely concave; no sclerotized ridges; some small setae close to the anterior margin. Telopodite composed of three articles, slightly narrowing towards the tip; pretarsus in shape of a long claw, ca. 3 times as long as wide, subconic, only slightly bent towards the tip, and with a small dorsal bulge close to the tip. FORCIPULAR SEGMENT. Tergite subtrapezoid, with lateral margins evidently converging anteriorly, ca. 2.2 times as wide as long, posteriorly almost as wide as the subsequent metatergite. Exposed part of the coxosternite ca. 1.2���1.3 times as wide as long, without denticles; coxopleural sutures complete, entirely ventral, only slightly sinuous; chitin-lines incomplete and pointing lateral to the condyles. Trochanteroprefemur ca. 1.1 times as long as wide, without denticles. Intermediate articles distinct, without denticles, each with a shallow bulge only. Tarsungulum 2.8���2.9 times as long as wide, uniformly curved both internally and externally; a basal subconic tubercle, about as long as wide at the basis, distinctly straight and pointed; internal margin not crenulate. Poison calyx subspherical, between the trochanteroprefemur and the first intermediate article. LEG- BEARING SEGMENTS. A total of 45 leg-bearing segments. Metasternites of the anterior third of the trunk distinctly wider than long, the remaining metasternites at least as long as wide. Metasternites of some anterior segments with a very shallow, bilobed socket (carpophagus pit) on the anterior margin, particularly evident in metasternites 7���12, ca. 0.7 times as wide as the margin of the metasternite. Pore fields well developed only on the metasternites 1���14, where they resemble a transverse band, close to the posterior margin of the metasternite. Leg claws simple, uniformly bent; a pair of accessory spines, reaching approximately one third of the length of the pretarsus, the anterior spine slightly longer than the posterior one. ULTIMATE LEG- BEARING SEGMENT. Pleuropretergite entire, lacking sutures or sulci or notches. Metasternite subtrapezoid, ca. 1.3���1.4 times as wide as long, anteriorly ca. 1.6���1.7 times as wide as posteriorly, lateral margins slightly convex, posterior margin almost straight; only 4 long setae and some additionally shorter setae. Coxal organs opening through 4 independent pores on the ventral side of each coxopleuron: 3 pores aligned along the lateral margin of the metasternite and covered by the latter; a distinctly smaller pore isolated approximately in the central part of the coxopleuron, anteriorly with respect to the most posterior of the other pores. Another coxal organ opens at the anterior tip of the coxopleuron, hardly detectable. On the left coxopleuron only, a smaller additional pore is present, close to the most anterior pore. Telopodite ca. 9 times as long as wide, ca. 1.4���1.5 times as long and 1.3 times as wide as the penultimate telopodite; 6 articles, covered with sparse long setae and rare ventral shorter setae. Pretarsus in shape of a pointed claw, similar to that of the preceding legs but slightly shorter and less sclerotized, with two accessory spines. POSTPEDAL SEGMENTS. Genital pleurosternite entire. Gonopods in shape of a short lamina. Anal pores exposed. Adult male morphology. Description of an adult male (PD5566). See also Fig. 1 D. Same as the female, to the exclusion of the following characters. GENERAL FEATURES. Body 9.1 mm long. LEG- BEARING SEGMENTS. A total of 43 leg-bearing segments. Carpophagus pits weakly evident, on metasternites 6���10. ULTIMATE LEG- BEARING SEGMENT. Coxal pores like in the female specimen, but no additional coxal organs detected at the tips of the coxopleura and without any unilateral pore. Telopodite ca. 6 times as long as wide, ca. 1.6 times as wide as the penultimate. In addition to sparse long setae, many distinctly denser and shorter setae on the ventral side of the most posterior part of the coxopleuron and of all the articles of the telopodite. POSTPEDAL SEGMENTS. Complete sutures between the genital sternite and the pleurites, converging anteriorly. Gonopods biarticulated, well separated, covered with setae, with a subconic penis in between. Variability between individuals. Variation in a representative population (n=43). GENERAL FEATURES. Maximum body length in females 19.3 mm, in males 13.4 mm. LEG- BEARING SEGMENTS. Number of leg-bearing segments in females 43 or 45, more frequently 45 (84%, n=19), in males 41 or 43 or 45, more frequently 43 (87%, n=15). ULTIMATE LEG- BEARING SEGMENT. Number of coxal pores increasing with body size, through at least three recognizable conditions (Fig. 3): (i) a single pore approximately in the middle of the ventral surface of each coxopleuron. This condition was found in specimens up to 5.6 mm long, all without gonopods; (ii) 3 pores on each coxopleuron: 2 pores along the lateral margin of the metasternite, similar in size; another pore more external, about halfway between the other pores, similar in size or slightly smaller than the other pores. This condition was found in specimens 5.5���5.9 mm long, either without gonopods or with female gonopod anlagen; (iii) 4���5 (occasionally 6) pores on each coxopleuron: 3 larger pores approximately aligned along the lateral margin of the metasternite, the most anterior pore often covered by the presternite and sometimes difficult to detect; a smaller pore more external, anteriorly with respect to the most posterior of the other pores; sometimes another pore on the tip on the coxopleuron; rarely, an additional smaller anterior pore. This condition was found in specimens more than 6.4 mm long, with partially or fully developed gonopods. The additional pore on the tip of the coxopleuron was detected on both sides in 6 specimens and at least on one side in another 2 specimens, whereas it was apparently absent in another 23 specimens, but it was not possible to rule out the presence of hidden pores. POSTPEDAL SEGMENTS. Among females, the gonopodal lamina was detected in all and only the specimens longer than 6.7 mm. Among males, at least partially developed gonopods were found in all specimens longer than 6.4 mm and fully developed gonopods in all specimens longer than 7.5 mm. Geographical distribution. Based on all reliable published records and new records obtained from specimens directly examined by us (Table 1; Fig. 4), the presence of G. pygmaeus resulted well documented in the South��� Eastern Alps, at least between the Como Lake in the West and the Slovene Prealps in the East, and in the most northern reaches of the Dinarides. In particular, populations of G. pygmaeus were ascertained in all the following sections of the Alps (as defined in the SOIUSA; Marazzi 2005): Bergamasque Alps and Prealps, Southern Rhaetian Alps, Brescia and Garda Prealps, Venetian Prealps, Dolomites, Carnic and Gailtal Alps, Julian Alps and Prealps, Carinthian���Slovenian Alps and Slovene Prealps. Most records are from the most marginal mountain massifs and plateaus, with a few records in some inner part of the Alps (Val di Tovel, code 18, Mt. Antelao, 27; Fig. 4). Published records of G. pygmaeus exist also for a couple of more western localities along the Prealps (codes 1, 2) and a few more northern localities in the Alps (7, 26, 43), but they need confirmation (Table 1). Other putative records of the species have been reported for other regions North and East of the Alps, i.e. either the Lower Bavarian Hills or the Bavarian Forest (38), the Drahany Highlands in Moravia (53), the area between the northern Dinarides and the Transdanubian Hills (52, 54, 55) and the Western Carpathians (56���60), but they all date before the mid-20th century and have not been confirmed more recently (Table 1). G. pygmaeus has also been reported twice for Crete, first by Attems (1902) and more recently by Simaiakis et al. (2004), but probably because of the misidentification of a similar species (Table1; see also Discussion)., Published as part of Peretti, Emiliano & Bonato, Lucio, 2016, Geophilus pygmaeus (Chilopoda: Geophilidae): clarifying morphology, variation and geographic distribution, pp. 499-514 in Zootaxa 4139 (4) on pages 500-510, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4139.4.3, http://zenodo.org/record/256689, {"references":["Latzel, R. (1880) Die Myriopoden der Osterreichisch-Ungarischen Monarchie. 1. Die Chilopod. Holder, Wien, 228 pp.","Haase, E. (1881) Schlesiens Chilopoden. II. Chilopoda Epimorpha. Zeitschrift fur Entomologie, N. F., Series 2, 8, 66 - 92.","Daday, E. (1889) Myriopoda regni Hungariae. Kiralyi Magyar Termeszettudomanyi Tarsulat, Budapest, 104 pp.","Attems, C. G. (1895) Die Myriopoden Steiermarks. Sitzungsberichten der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, 104, 117 - 238.","Verhoeff, K. W. (1895) Beitrage zur Kenntniss palaarktischer Myriopoden. II. Aufsatz: Ueber mitteleuropaische Geophiliden. Archiv fur Naturgeschichte, 61, 346 - 356.","Kimakowicz, M. V. (1897) Myriopoden Siebenburgens. Verhandlungen und Mittheilungen (sic) des Siebenburgischen Vereins fur Naturwissenschaften zu Hermannstadt, 46 (1896), 97 - 102.","Lucas, R. (1898) Myriopoda 1896, 1897. Archiv fur Naturgeschichte, 64 (2, 2), 1029 - 1088.","Diem, K. (1903) Untersuchungen uber die Bodenfauna in den Alpen. Jahrbuch - St. Gallische naturwissenschaftliche Gesellschaft, 1901 - 1902, 234 - 414.","Lignau, N. (1905) Mnogonozhky Krima (Die Myriapoden der Krim). Zapiski Novorossijskago Obscestva Estestvoispytatelej, 28, 197 - 199.","Depoli, G. (1907) Analisi dei miriapodi componenti la fauna fiumana. Rivista Italiana di Scienze Naturali e Bollettino del Naturalista, 27, 23 - 27, 85 - 93.","Brolemann, H. - W. (1930) Elements d'une faune des myriapodes de France. Chilopodes. Imprimerie Toulousaine, Toulouse, 404 pp.","Schubart, O. (1934) Myriapoda. Tabulae Biologicae, 4, 77 - 134.","Takakuwa, Y. (1940) Geophilomorpha. Fauna Nipponica, Sanseido, Tokyo, 9 (8, 1), 156 pp.","Folkmanova, B. (1952) Quelques formes interessantes (Geophilomorpha) de Moravie et de Silesie. Prirodovedecky Sbornik Ostravskeho Kraje, 13, 179 - 192.","Dobroruka, L. J. (1961) Die Hundertfussler (Chilopoda). Die neue Brehm-Bucherei, Wittenberg, 49 pp.","Matic, Z. (1966) Clasa Chilopoda Subclasa Anamorpha. Fauna Republicii Socialiste Romania, 6 (1), 1 - 266.","Wurmli, M. (1972) Chilopoda. Catalogus Faunae Austriae, 11 a, 1 - 16.","Minelli, A. (1978 a) Note tassonomiche su Geophilus insculptus Att. e forme affini (Chilopoda). Animalia, 5, 295 - 305.","Koren, A. (1986) Die Chilopoden-Fauna von Karnten und Osttirol. 1. Geophilomorpha Scolopendromorpha. Carinthia II, 43 (Supplement), 1 - 85.","Minelli, A. & Iovane, E. (1987) Habitat preferences and taxocenoses of Italian centipedes (Chilopoda). Bollettino del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Venezia, 37 (1986), 7 - 34.","Zapparoli, M. (1989) I chilopodi delle Alpi sud-orientali. Biogeographia, 13 (1987), 553 - 585.","Kos, I. (1992 a) A review of the taxonomy, geographical distribution and ecology of the centipedes of Yugoslavia (Myriapoda Chilopoda). Berichte des Naturwissenschaftlich-Medizinischen Vereins in Innsbruck, 10 (Supplement), 353 - 360.","Minelli, A. & Zapparoli, M. (1992) Considerazioni faunistiche e zoogeografiche sui chilopodi delle Alpi Occidentali. Biogeographia, 16, 211 - 243.","Foddai, D., Minelli, A., Scheller, U. & Zapparoli, M. (1995) Chilopoda, Diplopoda, Pauropoda, Symphyla. In: Minelli, A., Ruffo, S. & La Posta, S. (Eds.), Checklist delle specie della fauna italiana, Calderini, Bologna, 32, pp. 1 - 35.","Christian, E. (1996) Die Erdlaufer (Chilopoda-Geophilida) des Wiener Stadtgebietes. Verhandlungen der Zoologisch- Botanischen Gesellschaft in Osterreich, 133, 107 - 132.","Stoev, P. (1997) A check-list of the centipedes of the Balkan peninsula with some taxonomic notes and a complete bibliography (Chilopoda). Entomologica Scandinavica, 51 (Supplement), 87 - 105.","Wytwer, J. (1997) Chilopoda - Pareczniki. In: Razowski, J. (Ed.), Checklist of animals of Poland. Vol. 4. Wydawnictwa Instytutu Systematyki i Ewolucji Zwierzat PAN, Krakow, pp. 265 - 267.","Simaiakis, S., Minelli, A. & Mylonas, M. (2004) The centipede fauna (Chilopoda) of Crete and its satellite islands (Greece, Eastern Mediterranean). Israel Journal of Zoology, 50 (4), 367 - 418.","Spelda, J. (2005) Improvements in the knowledge of the myriapod fauna of southern Germany between 1988 and 2005 (Myriapoda: Chilopoda, Diplopoda, Pauropoda, Symphyla). Peckiana, 4, 101 - 129.","Tuf, I. H. & Laska, V. (2005) Present Knowledge on centipedes in the Czech Republic - a zoogeographic analysis and bibliography 1820 - 2003. Peckiana, 4, 143 - 161.","Iorio, E. & Berg, M. (2007) Premiere contribution a l'etude des chilopodes (Chilopoda) de Provence et description d'une nouvelle sous-espece. Bulletin de la Societe Linneenne de Provence, 58, 21 - 36.","Tuf, I. H. & Tufova, J. (2008) Proposal of ecological classification of centipede, millipede and terrestrial isopod faunas for evaluation of habitat quality in Czech Republic. Casopis Slezskeho musea v Opave. A, Vedy prirodni, 57, 37 - 44.","Geoffroy, J. - J. & Iorio, E. (2009) The French centipede fauna (Chilopoda): updated checklist and distribution in mainland France, Corsica and Monaco. Soil Organisms, 81 (3), 671 - 694.","Ilie, V., Schiller, E. & Stagl, V. (2009) Type specimens of the Geophilomorpha (Chilopoda) in the Natural History Museum in Vienna. Kataloge der wissenschaftlichen Sammlungen des Naturhistorischen Museum in Wien, 22 (4), 1 - 75.","Stockli, E. (2009) Literature-based survey on the Swiss fauna of Chilopoda. Soil Organisms, 81 (3), 647 - 669.","Danyi, L. (2010) Magyarorszag szazlabui (Chilopoda) II. Hatarozokulcs. Allattani Kozlemenyek, 95 (1), 3 - 24.","Voigtlander, K., Reip, H. S., Decker, P. & Spelda, J. (2011) Critical reflections on German Red Lists of endangered myriapod species (Chilopoda, Diplopoda) (with species list for Germany). International Journal of Myriapodology, 6, 85 - 105. http: // dx. doi. org / 10.3897 / ijm. 6.2175","Reip, H. S., Decker, P., Voigtlander, K., Lindner, E. N., Hannig, K. & Spelda, J. (2012) Seltene Myriapoden Deutschlands (Diplopoda, Chilopoda). Schubartiana, 5, 49 - 112.","Iorio, E. (2014) Catalogue biogeographique et taxonomique des chilopodes (Chilopoda) de France metropolitaine. Memoires de la Societe Linneenne de Bordeaux, 15, 1 - 372.","Bonato, L. & Minelli, A. (2014) Chilopoda Geophilomorpha of Europe: a revised list of species, with taxonomic and nomenclatorial notes. Zootaxa, 3770 (1), 1 - 136. http: // dx. doi. org / 10.11646 / zootaxa. 3770.1.1","Moretto, M., Minelli, A. & Fusco, G. (2015) Cell size versus body size in geophilomorph centipedes. The Science of Nature, 102 (3 - 4), 16. http: // dx. doi. org / 10.1007 / s 00114 - 015 - 1269 - 4","Verhoeff, K. W. (1898) Beitrage zur Kenntniss palaarktischer Myriopoden. VI. Aufsatz: Ueber palaarktische Geophiliden. Archiv fur Naturgeschichte, 64, 335 - 362.","Valis, J. (1902) Prispevky k poznani moravske myriopodofauny (stonozky). Casopis Vlastivedne spolecnosti muzejni v Olomouci, 19, 20 - 27.","Verhoeff, K. W. (1934 b) Beitrage zur Systematik und Geographie der Chilopoden. Zoologische Jahrbucher. Abteilung fur Systematik, Okologie und Geographie der Tiere, 66, 1 - 112.","Minelli, A. (1978 b) Zur Taxonomie und Chorologie der Chilopoden Italiens: Entwurf einer Monographie. Abhandlungen und Verhandlungen des Naturwissenschaftlichen Vereins in Hamburg, N. F., 21 - 22, 149 - 159.","Moritz, M. & Fischer, S. - C. (1979) Die Typen der Myriapoden-Sammlung des zoologischen Museums Berlin. II. Chilopoda. Mitteilungen aus dem Zoologischen Museum in Berlin, 55, 297 - 352.","Verhoeff, K. W. (1938) Chilopoden-Studien zur Kenntnis der Epimorphen. Zoologische Jahrbucher, Abteilung fur Systematik, Okologie und Geographie der Tiere, 71, 339 - 388.","Kaczmarek, J. (1980) Pareczniki Chilopoda. Katalog Fauny Polski, 14, 1 - 43.","Grgic, T. & Kos, I. (2003) Centipede diversity in patches of different development phases in an unevenly-aged beech forest stand in Slovenia. African Invertebrates, 44 (1), 237 - 252.","Attems, C. G. (1929 a) Myriapoda. 1. Geophilomorpha. Das Tierreich, 52, 1 - 388.","Kos, I. (1992 b) The red list of endangered Chilopoda in Slovenia. Varstvo Narave, 17, 137 - 146.","Attems, C. G. (1902) Myriopoden von Kreta nebst Beitragen zur allgemeinen Kenntnis einiger Gattungen. Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien. Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Klasse, 111, 527 - 614.","Verhoeff, K. W. (1940) Chilopoden von Karnten und Tauern, ihre Beziehungen zu europaischen und mediterranen Landern und uber allgemeine geographische Verhaltnisse. Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, mathematisch-naturwissenschaftliche Klasse, 1940 (5), 1 - 39.","Latzel, R. (1885) Die Myriopoden Karntens. Jahrbuch des naturhistorischen Landesmuseums fur Karnten, 17, 33 - 46.","Valis, J. (1904) Predbezny prehled dosud z Moravy znamych Myriopodu. Vestnik Kralovske ceske spolecnosti nauk. Trida filosoficko-historicko-filologicka, 2, 1 - 12.","Minelli, A. (1982) I chilopodi nell'ambiente dei boschi planiziali padano-veneti. In: Quaderni sulla Struttura delle zoocenosi terrestri. 4. I boschi della pianura padano-veneta, 1982, pp. 125 - 135.","Marazzi, S. (2005) Atlante Orografico delle Alpi. SOIUSA. Priuli & Verlucca, 416 pp."]}

44. Geophilus ungviculatus Daday, 1889 (1) Geophilus ungviculatis [sic!] Daday, 1889: 145, pl. 5, figs. 32���33. (2) G. unguiculatus [sic!] Dad.: Attems, 1903 b: 235. (3) G. unguiculatus [sic!] Daday: Attems, 1929 a: 176. (4) Geophilus unguiculatus [sic!] Dad.: Kanellis, 1959: 12. (5) Geophilus ungviculatus Daday, 1889: Zapparoli, 2002: 105, Fig. 46. General distribution. Europe: Greece (Peloponnisos) (Zapparoli 2002; Minelli et al. 2006). Chorotype. Peloponnesian endemic (END). Records in Peloponnisos (Fig. 15). Ahaia: Patra (loc. typ.) (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). Ecological notes. No habitat data available. Remarks. The identity of this species and its presence in Peloponnisos need to be investigated further (see Bonato et al. 2013)., Published as part of Simaiakis, Stylianos Michail, Akkari, Nesrine & Zapparoli, Marzio, 2016, The centipedes of Peloponnisos and first records of genus Eurygeophilus in the East Mediterranean (Myriapoda: Chilopoda), pp. 301-346 in Zootaxa 4061 (4) on page 339, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4061.4.1, http://zenodo.org/record/264204, {"references":["Daday, J. (1889) A Magyar Nemzeti Muzeum idegenfoldi Myriopodai. Myriapoda extranea Musaei Nationalis Hungarici. Termeszetrajzi Fuzetak, 12, 115 - 156.","Attems, C. G. (1903 b) Synopsis der Geophiliden. Zoologische Jahrbucher, Abteilung fur Systematik, Okologie und Geographie der Tiere, 18, 155 - 302.","Attems, C. G. (1929 a) Geophilomorpha. Das Tierreich, 52, 1 - 388. [W. de Gruyter & Co., Berlin and Leipzig]","Kanellis, A. (1959) Die Chilopodenfauna Griechenlands. Scientific Annals of the Society of Physics and Mathematics, University of Thessaloniki, l, 1 - 56.","Zapparoli, M. (2002) Catalogue of the centipedes from Greece (Chilopoda). Fragmenta Entomologica, 34, 1 - 146.","Simaiakis, S. M., Zapparoli, M., Minelli, A. & Bonato, L. (2013) The centipede fauna (Chilopoda) of the island of Cyprus, with one new lithobiomorph species. Zootaxa, 3647 (2), 279 - 306. http: // dx. doi. org / 10.11646 / zootaxa. 3647.2.3"]}

Geophilus flavus (De Geer, 1778) Scolopendra flava De Geer, 1778: 561. LOCALITÉ TYPE. — Inconnue. MATÉRIEL EXAMINÉ. — Allos (04), PNM, 11-17.VI.1899, réc. HWB/dét. EI: 2♀ à 51pp; Allos (04), PNM, bois de Villard, 16.VI.1899, réc. HWB/dét. EI: 1♀ à 51pp; Beuil (06), PNM, Les Launes, conifères et lisière pelouse, 1600 m, 7.VI.2008, réc./ dét. EI: 2♂ à 49pp; Colmars-les-Alpes (04), PNM, Ratery, forêt domaniale de la Haute-Vallée du Verdon, mélèzaie, sol et bois mort, 1700 m, 22.VIII.2009, réc./dét. JJG: 1♀; Saint-Martin-Vésubie (06), PNM, Forêt de Boréon, parking 5, forêt mixte de conifères, 1500 m, 44°06’59’’N- 7°16’44’’E, 21.V.2010, réc./dét. MZ: 3♀ (1♀ à 51pp, 2♀ à 53pp); Monaco, aven, XI-XII.2012, réc. JML/dét. EI: 1♂ immature à 49pp; idem, I-III.2013: 1♂ immature à 51pp. Spécimens conservés en éthanol à 70° dans la collection personnelle des auteurs (EI, MZ) ou dans celle du MNHN (Myriapoda, Geophilomorpha) (JJG). RÉPARTITION ET HABITAT. — Ce géophilomorphe est largement réparti en Europe, également connu en Tunisie, et introduit dans diverses contrées, par exemple en Amérique du Nord; en France tout comme en Italie, il est connu dans de nombreux secteurs, et apparaît comme une des espèces les plus euryèces de cet ordre de chilopodes même s’il est plus souvent trouvé en forêt qu’ailleurs (Brölemann 1930; Minelli & Iovane 1987; Zapparoli 2006; Geoffroy & Iorio 2009; Iorio 2014). 20 des stations connues dans les Alpes-Maritimes informent sur les habitats: quatre forêts indéterminées, deux pessières, une pinède, une aulnaie, une hêtraie-conifères, une châtaigneraie et une forêt de feuillus dominée par le châtaignier, une mélèzaie, deux forêts de conifères, une rhodoraie/prairie limitrophe, une prairie subalpine, une prairie montagnarde et une lisière de pelouse montagnarde, un milieu méditerranéen sur une île, et dans deux avens. G. flavus est présent de 0 à 2450 mètres dans ce département., Published as part of Iorio, Étienne, Zapparoli, Marzio, Ponel, Philippe & Geoffroy, Jean-Jacques, 2015, Les myriapodes chilopodes (Chilopoda) du Parc national du Mercantour, du département des Alpes-Maritimes et de leurs environs: description d'une nouvelle espèce du genre Lithobius Leach, 1814 s. s., synthèse des connaissances et espèces menacées, pp. 211-238 in Zoosystema 37 (1) on page 231, DOI: 10.5252/z2015n1a11, http://zenodo.org/record/5155397, {"references":["GEER C. DE 1778. - Memoires pour servir a l'histoire des insectes. Tome VII. P. Hesselberg, Stockholm, 1778: 950 p.","BROLEMANN H. W. 1930. - Elements d'une faune des myriapodes de France. Chilopodes. Faune de France, 25. P. Lechevalier, Paris, 405 p.","MINELLI A. & IOVANE E. 1987. - Habitat preferences and taxocenoses of Italian centipedes. Bollettino del Museo civico di Storia naturale di Venezia 37: 7 - 34.","GEOFFROY J. - J. & IORIO E. 2009. - The French centipede fauna (Chilopoda): updated checklist and distribution in mainland France, Corsica and Monaco. Soil Organisms 81 (3): 671 - 694.","IORIO E. 2014. - Catalogue biogeographique des chilopodes (Chilopoda) de France metropolitaine. Memoires de la Societe linneenne de Bordeaux 15: 1 - 372."]}

* Geophilus cf. carpophagus Leach, 1815 Material examined: 17 3, 27 ����. Sites: 47, 53, 110, 111, 123, 125, 151, 152, 153 (Fig. 18). Habitats. Maquis formations with Juniperus, ravines with Platanus and Pinus, mixed forests with Pinus and Quercus. Altitudinal range: 110���1340 m. Range of leg pairs recorded in Cyprus. 53���55 (3) and 53���57 (����). Remarks. Since the discovery of G. e a s o n i Arthur, Foddai, Kettle, Lewis, Luczynski & Minelli, 2001 and the reevaluation of G. arenarius Meinert, 1870 (Bonato & Minelli 2011), it is now clear that there are multiple taxa within what was known until recently as a single species G. carpophagus. The range of this species-complex includes Middle and Near East, most part of Europe, Maghreb and Macaronesia (see Zapparoli & Iorio 2012). The identity of the populations in the Eastern part of this range deserves close study., Published as part of Simaiakis, Stylianos Michail, Zapparoli, Marzio, Minelli, Alessandro & Bonato, Lucio, 2013, The centipede fauna (Chilopoda) of the island of Cyprus, with one new lithobiomorph species, pp. 279-306 in Zootaxa 3647 (2) on page 297, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3647.2.3, http://zenodo.org/record/220527

Geophilus cf. carpophagus Leach, 1815 Published records: ���Umgebung von Jerusalem��� [near Jerusalem] (Verhoeff 1934, sub G. carpophagus judaicus); ���Hula Sajadah��� [Beit Saida?] (Zapparoli 1995). New records: Nahal Betzet (1 specimen 1964); Safed (1 specimen 2012). Distribution in Israel: specimens have been found in cool, mostly high altitude localities in the Galilee and near Jerusalem, with average annual temperatures between 16���20 ˚C and annual precipitation between 450���750 mm (Figure 3 B). Global distribution: populations in the species complex including G. carpophagus inhabit most parts of the western Palearctic, from Canary islands and north-western Africa to Ukraine and Israel. Taxonomic and nomenclatural notes. The circumscription of the species G. carpophagus is still uncertain with respect to other very similar species recently recognized, including Geophilus easoni Arthur, Foddai, Kettle, Lewis, Luczynski & Minelli, 2001 and G. arenarius Meinert, 1870 (Arthur et al. 2001; Bonato & Minelli 2011). Referring to the known differences between the type material of the three species, the specimens examined agree fully with G. carpophagus, while they differ from the other two species in some diagnostic features including the elongation of the forcipular coxosternite, the absence of denticles on the forcipular tarsungula, and the presence of carpophagus sockets. Geophilus carpophagus judaicus Verhoeff, 1934 was not accepted as a valid subspecies by any authors other than Verhoeff (e.g.: Attems 1947; Stoev 1997). However, we can not establish a synonymy confidently, because the species complex including G. carpophagus is still poorly understood, and the characters described for the subspecies judaicus do not obviously point to any of the known species. Additionally, some of the peculiar features described for judaicus could be affected by artifacts produced in the preparation of microscope slides, including the poor evidence of carpophagus sockets and the stout shape of the metasternite of the ultimate leg-bearing segment., Published as part of Chipman, Ariel D., Dor, Neta & Bonato, Lucio, 2013, Diversity and biogeography of Israeli geophilomorph centipedes (Chilopoda: Geophilomorpha), pp. 232-248 in Zootaxa 3652 (2) on page 237, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3652.2.2, http://zenodo.org/record/219927

Geophilus cf. nesiotes Attems, 1903 Published records: none. New records: ���Segev Forest��� (1 specimen, no date recorded). Distribution in Israel: a single record from the Lower Galilee (Figure 4 A). Global distribution: G. nesiotes was described from Crete, but its actual distribution is very uncertain. Taxonomic and nomenclatural notes. The specimen examined belongs to a distinct lineage in the broad genus Geophilus Leach, 1814 that is distinguished by a combination of characters including the peculiar modification of the claws of the second maxillae into a stout tubercle abruptly tapering into a tip. Among the many species described in this group, the specimen collected in Israel most closely resembles G. nesiotes, mainly in the number of trunk segments and the pattern of coxal pores. G. nesiotes was described from Crete (Attems 1903 1929) but its distinction from the mainland European species G. insculptus Attems, 1895 (currently G. alpinus Meinert, 1870) has been questioned (Minelli 1978; Zapparoli 2002)., Published as part of Chipman, Ariel D., Dor, Neta & Bonato, Lucio, 2013, Diversity and biogeography of Israeli geophilomorph centipedes (Chilopoda: Geophilomorpha), pp. 232-248 in Zootaxa 3652 (2) on page 237, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3652.2.2, http://zenodo.org/record/219927

Geophilus Leach, 1815, Published as part of Simaiakis, Stylianos Michail, Zapparoli, Marzio, Minelli, Alessandro & Bonato, Lucio, 2013, The centipede fauna (Chilopoda) of the island of Cyprus, with one new lithobiomorph species, pp. 279-306 in Zootaxa 3647 (2) on page 296, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3647.2.3, http://zenodo.org/record/220527

Geophilus gigas Attems, 1951 Full list of citations. Attems 1951: 392 (original description) Type localities. Koohrang mountains (Zagros mountains, Iran). Ghori Gol (Azerbaijan, Iran). Synonyms. None. Differential diagnosis. A Geophilus species with maximum body length at least 6 cm, antennae 3���4 times as long as the head, no clypeal areas, labrum with 6���8 intermediate tubercles, first maxillae with two pairs of lappets; second maxillae with uniformly tapering claws; forcipular coxosternite distinctly wider than long; coxopleural sutures diverging all along their length; chitin-lines incomplete; forcipules relatively short, without denticles, only a small bulge on the base of the tarsungulum; poison calyx elongate; trunk metasternites without carpophagus pit; sternal pore-fields on both anterior and posterior parts of trunk, those on the anterior part including a posterior transverse band, two paired groups just anterior to the latter, and two paired groups at the anterior corners of the metasternite; pores also on procoxae and metacoxae; metasternite of the ultimate leg-bearing segment nearly as long as wide; coxal pores many, scattered, mainly along the margin of metatergite and metasternite; legs of the ultimate pair nearly 2 times longer than the penultimate, swollen in both sexes, with well-developed claws. Table 1 compares the main differential characters among the most similar species of the genus Geophilus. Description of an adult male (Figs. 1, 2, 4, 5, 8). Syntype from Iran, Koohrang mountains (full data in Material and methods) [body entire, not dissected]. General features (Fig. 1). Body 57 mm long, narrowing forward, more attenuated toward the posterior tip. Color (preserved in 70 % ethanol) almost uniform, yellow-orange. Cephalic capsule (Fig. 2). Cephalic plate slightly longer than wide (length/width = ca. 1), sub-trapezoid, lateral margins convex and slightly converging forward, posterior margin concave; transverse suture not evident. Labrum: intermediate part continuous with the clypeus, bearing 6 sclerotised tubercles. Antennae (Fig. 2). Each antenna ca. 3.6 times as long as the head; article II 1.1 times as long as wide, intermediate articles as long as wide, article XIV ca. 1.5 times as long as wide; setae of various size on the most basal articles, gradually denser and shorter from the basal articles to the distal ones; group of subconic, slender sensilla on articles V, IX and XIII, on both dorso-external and ventro-internal distal position; club-like sensilla on article XIV 5���10 ��m long. [Other sensilla impossible to examine, because post-mortem artifacts] Second maxillae: telopodite composed of three articles, gradually narrowing towards the tip; pretarsus as a simple claw, gradually tapering and slightly curved, without projections. Forcipular segment (Fig. 1). Forcipules, when closed, almost surpassing the anterior margin of the head. Tergite subtrapezoid, lateral margins evidently converging forward. Coxosternite without denticles; ventrally exposed part 1.5 times as wide as long; coxopleural sutures complete, entirely ventral, distinctly diverging on their anterior half; chitin-lines incomplete, diverging lateral to the condyles. Trochanteroprefemur as long as wide, the external side 2.7 times as long as the internal side. Tarsungulum abruptly narrowing near the base, the distal part curved and tapering uniformly, not flattened, the internal margin entire; a tiny bulge at the base of tarsungulum. No denticles on the other forcipular articles. Leg-bearing segments. Tergite 1 wider than 2, lateral margins parallel, no distinct pretergite. Metasternites without carpophagus pits on the anterior margin, only intermediate triangular projection on the posterior margin of metasternites of the anterior segments. Ventral pore-fields from segment 1 to the penultimate: pores grouped in a transverse posterior band and four additional paired small groups on the anterior and intermediate part of the metasternite (Fig. 8); pores also on procoxae and metacoxae; pore-fields become smaller and indistinct on the posterior segments. A total of 59 pairs of legs; legs 1 smaller than the other legs; claws with 2 accessory spines. Ultimate leg-bearing segment (Fig. 4, 5). Pleuropretergite entire, without sutures. Metatergite with lateral margins convex and converging backward, posterior margin truncate. Metasternite sub-trapezoid nearly as long as wide, lateral margins almost straight, posterior margin straight; setae uniformly scattered. Coxal organs opening through distinct pores, each coxopleuron with ca. 21 on ventral and ca. 8 on dorsal side, scattered, but mainly close to the margins of the metatergite and metasternite, without evidently isolated posterior pore. Ultimate telopodite ca. 2.1 times as long as and 2.2 times as wide as the penultimate telopodite; setae uniformly scattered on both dorsal and ventral sides; claws similar to those of precedent legs, but smaller than those, with just one accessory spine, distinctly shorter, on posterior position. Postpedal segments (Fig. 5). Gonopods bi-articulate, with conical penis in between; a pair of distinct anal organs and pores. Complementary description of a female (Figs. 3, 6, 7, 9, 10). From Iran, Mazandaran (full data in Material and methods) [mouth parts dissected]. General features. Body 41 mm long. Cephalic capsule (Fig. 6). Transverse suture distinct. Clypeus uniformly areolate, without finely areolate clypeal areas and without plagulae; lateral margins complete; 14 pairs of setae arranged in the anterior part of the clypeus, in addition 3 mid-longitudinally aligned setae on the posterior part of clypeus. Labrum: intermediate part continuous with the clypeus, bearing 8 sclerotised tubercles; each lateral part separated from the clypeus by a complete margin, bearing ca. 10 bristles branching into fine short filaments close to the tip. Pleurites uniformly areolate, with 9 anterior setae. Antennae. Each antenna ca. 3.0 times as long as the head; article II 1.3 times as long as wide, intermediate articles as long as wide, article XIV ca. 2.0 times as long as wide, spine-like sensilla on articles II, XIII and XIV. [Apical sensilla impossible to examine, because antennal tips collapsed] Mandible. A single pectinate lamella. Maxillary complex (Fig. 3). First maxillae: coxosternite entire, with short lappets, coxal projections subtriangular, longer than wide; telopodites longer than coxal projections, composed of two articles, with elongate lappets; coxal projections and distal articles of the telopodites bearing setae on the distal part, spine-like sensilla close to the tip and minute scales on the tip. Second maxillae: coxosternite entire, uniformly areolate, anterior margin widely concave, setae close to the anterior margin; metameric pores featuring as transverse slits; telopodite composed of three articles, gradually narrowing towards the tip; claw simple, gradually tapering, slightly bent with 3 sensilla on the ventral side. Forcipular segment (Fig. 7). Coxosternite: two paramedian groups of 6���7 setae on the dorsal side, close to the anterior margin; ventrally exposed part 1.4 times as wide as long. Trochanteroprefemur nearly as long as wide, the external side 2.1 times as long as internal side. Poison calyx relatively long, 4.2 times as long as wide, lodged in the distal part of trochanteroprefemur. Leg-bearing segments. A total of 59. Ultimate leg-bearing segment (Figs 9���10). Coxal organs opening through distinct pores, ca. 22 on ventral and ca. 12 on dorsal side, mainly along the margins of both the metatergite and the metasternite. Ultimate telopodite ca. 2.0 times as long as and 2.2 times as wide as the penultimate telopodite; setae uniformly scattered on both dorsal and ventral sides; claws similar to those of precedent legs but smaller than those, with just one accessory spine, distinctly shorter, on posterior position. Postpedal segments (Fig. 9). Genital pleurosternite entire, gonopodal lamina distinctly bilobed. A pair of distinct anal organs and pores. Intraspecific variation. Taking into account the data reported by Attems (1951) (referring to at least four specimens, but the exact number is unclear) and the information acquired directly by us (on one of the syntypes and another 3 specimens), the number of leg pairs varies among specimens of G. g i ga s in the range 51���61, with the highest values 59 and 61 recorded on both males and females, the lowest in a specimen of unknown sex. The transverse suture on the head is either evident or not in different specimens, but this could be affected by preservation condition or by differences in integumental structures during the moulting cycle, different specimens having been fixed at different stages during the inter-moult development. In addition to the common pattern of pore-fields on the metasternites, procoxae and metacoxae, a few pores (1���3) have been detected also on the coxae of the specimens freshly collected from Alborz Mountains, whereas no pores are visible on the coxae of the syntype. However, this apparent difference could be a result of preservation condition after very different times since collection (only 1���2 years vs. more than half a century). Among four adult specimens with well developed gonopods that were studied directly (two males and two females), no sexual dimorphism was found in the ultimate legs, which are similarly swollen in both females and males. Habitat. Based on published and new data, G. gigas has been recorded from five sites, all in Iran, two from the Zagros Mountains and three from the Alborz Mountains. All sites are in mountainous areas, most sites have semidesertic or grassy vegetation, but one site is covered with highland forest, at high altitude (1500���2600 m), covered by snow during the winter and with cool weather during summer., Published as part of Zarei, Roghaieh, Rahimian, Hassan & Bonato, Lucio, 2013, Morphology of a neglected large-sized species of Geophilus from Iran (Chilopoda: Geophilidae), pp. 486-500 in Zootaxa 3736 (5) on pages 487-491, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3736.5.4, http://zenodo.org/record/222910

* Geophilus cf. alpinus Meinert, 1870 Material examined: 1 ��. Sites: 123 (Fig. 18). Habitats. Mixed forests with Pinus and Quercus. Altitudinal range: known only from a site at 1000 m. Range of leg pairs recorded in Cyprus. 43 (��). Remarks. G. alpinus is an European species whose distribution includes Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, European Russia, France (mainland, Corsica), Germany, Greece (mainland, Crete), Hungary, Ireland, Italy (mainland, Sardinia, Sicily), Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Slovenia, Sweden, United Kingdom; also recorded in Morocco and Tunisia (Zapparoli 2002; Simaiakis et al. 2005). The identification of the single specimen is only tentatively, because the taxonomy is still uncertain for the group of closely related species including G. alpinus and other less adequately described very similar species., Published as part of Simaiakis, Stylianos Michail, Zapparoli, Marzio, Minelli, Alessandro & Bonato, Lucio, 2013, The centipede fauna (Chilopoda) of the island of Cyprus, with one new lithobiomorph species, pp. 279-306 in Zootaxa 3647 (2) on page 296, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3647.2.3, http://zenodo.org/record/220527

Geophilus arenarius Meinert, 1870 Full list of citations. Meinert 1870: 78 (original description, and in key). T��m��sv��ry 1880: 618. Daday 1889: 24, 28, 30, 33, 37, 85 (in key), 86 (description, and new records). Verhoeff 1896: 88 (in key). Attems 1903: 169, 221 (in key), 228. Depoli 1907: 25, 85, 86, 89. Brolemann 1921: 103. Attems 1929 a: 182 (description). Attems 1929 b: 287, 296. Brolemann 1932: 43 (in key). Szab�� 1932: 48 (new record). Matic et al. 1970: 98. Matic 1972: 107 (in key), 118 (description). Kos 1992: 354. Stoev 1997: 102. Type locality. �����sten for Bona ��� [= east of Annaba (Algeria)](Meinert 1870). Type material. Syntypes: a total of 36 specimens, including 16 females and 20 males, according to the original description (Meinert 1870); however, a total of 34 specimens, including 13 females, 20 males and another incomplete specimen of unknown sex, are currently preserved in the Zoological Museum, Natural History Museum of Denmark, University of Copenhagen, and confidently recognised as the original series examined by F. Meinert. Synonyms. None. Differential diagnosis. With respect to the most similar species (Table 1, Figs 1���11), G. arenarius differs from both G. carpophagus and G. easoni in lacking the transverse suture on the head and the so-called carpophagusstructures on the trunk, and having relatively stouter antennae and forcipular coxosternite (see also below, under Discussion). Additionally, G. arenarius differs from G. carpophagus in the distinctly smaller size at full growth, the usually blunt and more sclerotised tubercles lining the intermediate part of the labrum, and the presence of a minute denticle at the basis of the forcipular tarsungula. Geophilus arenarius differs from G. easoni in the fewer bristles lining the lateral parts of the labrum, in the greyish colour of the trunk, and the higher number of legs. Description of an adult female (one of the syntypes, 34 mm long, with 57 pairs of legs; Figs 1���5). General features. Body only slightly narrowing forward, more attenuated towards the posterior tip. Colour (preserved in 70 % ethanol) almost uniform, pale brownish grey. Cephalic capsule. Cephalic plate (Fig. 1) sub-trapezoid, as long as wide; anterior margin slightly angulated, lateral margins evidently convex and convergent forward, posterior margin slightly concave; no transverse suture. Clypeus (Fig. 2) uniformly areolate, without finely areolate clypeal areas and without plagulae; lateral margins complete; 10 pairs of setae, including a paramedian pair close to the anterior margin, most setae arranged in a transverse row in the anterior part of the clypeus, and two paramedian pairs posterior to the latter. Labrum (Fig. 2): intermediate part continuous with the clypeus, bearing 4 sclerotised stout tubercles; each lateral part separated from the clypeus by a complete margin, bearing ca. 8 bristles branching into fine short filaments close to the tip. Pleurites uniformly areolate, with 3 anterior setae. Antennae (Fig. 1). Each antenna ca. 2.2 times as long as the head; intermediate articles about as long as wide; article XIV ca. 1.6 times as long as wide. Setae of various size on the most basal articles, gradually denser and shorter from the basal articles to the distal ones. Apical sensilla ca. 14 ��m long, spear-like, slender, slightly narrowing towards the tip. Club-like sensilla only on article XIV, grouped on the distal parts of both the internal and external sides. Three longitudinal rows of propioceptive spine-like sensilla at the bases of the articles; rows lacking on articles VI, X and XIV, where only a single, dorsal sensillum is present. Groups of 1���6 sensilla, similar to the apical ones but shorter, on both the ventro-internal and the dorso-external sides of the distal part of articles II, V, IX and XIII. Mandible. A single pectinate lamella. Maxillary complex (Fig. 3). First maxillae: coxosternite entire, with short lappets; coxal projections sub-triangular, longer than wide; telopodites longer than the coxal projections, composed of two articles, with elongate lappets; coxal projections and the distal article of the telopodites bearing setae on the basal part, spine-like sensilla close to the tip, and minute scales on the tip. Second maxillae: coxosternite entire, uniformly areolate, the anterior margin widely concave, with setae close to the anterior margin; metameric pores featuring as transverse slits; telopodites composed of three articles, gradually narrowing towards the tip; claw simple, sub-conic, gradually tapering, slightly bent, with 1���2 short sensilla on the ventral side. Forcipular segment (Fig. 4). Forcipules, when closed, just reaching the anterior margin of the head. Tergite subtrapezoid, ca. 4.4 times as wide as long, lateral margins evidently converging forward; no pretergite exposed. Pleurites without a distinct dorsal ridge. Coxosternite: two paramedian groups of 4���5 small setae on the dorsal side, close to the anterior margin; no denticles; ventrally exposed part ca. 1.76 times as wide as long; coxopleural sutures entirely ventral, strongly converging backward; chitin-lines incomplete, diverging lateral from the condyles. Trochanteroprefemur ca. 1.1 times as wide as long, the external side ca. 2.0 times as long as the internal side. Tarsungulum abruptly narrowing near the base, the distal part curved and tapering uniformly, the internal margin entire. A tiny denticle at the basis of tarsungulum; no denticles on the other forcipular articles. Poison calyx relatively long, asymmetric, lodged in the distal part of the trochanteroprefemur. Leg-bearing segments. Tergite 1 wider than metatergite 2, lateral margins slightly converging backward; no distinct pretergite 1. Metasternites without carpophagus pits on the anterior margin, only a small projection on the posterior margin of those of the anterior segments (resembling the peg usually facing the pit in a typical carpophagus-structure; Fig. 11). Ventral pore-fields from segment 1 to the penultimate: a transverse posterior band, which is entire on the most anterior segments, medially interrupted on the remaining segments; anterior segments with additional small pores-fields close to the anterior corners of the metasternite and on procoxae and metacoxae. Legs 1 smaller than the other legs. Claws with two accessory spines, the anterior one distinctly longer than the posterior one. Ultimate leg-bearing segment (Fig. 5). Pleuropretergite entire, without sutures. Metatergite ca. 1.8 times as wide as long, lateral margins convex and converging backward, posterior margin truncate. Metasternite sub-trapezoid, ca. 2.0 times as wide as long, lateral margins convex, posterior margin almost straight; setae uniformly scattered. Coxopleura moderately swollen, reaching forward the posterior margin of the presternite; setae uniformly scattered. Coxal organs opening through distinct pores, all on the ventral side along the lateral margins of the metasternite, 10 on one side and 9 on the other side. Ultimate telopodites ca. 1.1 times as long as, and as wide as, the penultimate; setae uniformly scattered on both dorsal and ventral sides; claws similar to those of precedent legs, only slightly smaller than those, the accessory spines distinctly shorter. Postpedal segments (Fig. 5). First genital pleurosternite entire, without distinct pleurites. Gonopodal lamina distinctly bilobed. A pair of distinct anal organs and pores. Differences in an adult male (one of the syntypes, 27 mm long, with 55 pairs of legs; Fig. 6). Ultimate leg-bearing segment (Fig. 6). Distinctly denser, shorter setae on the posterior part of the metasternite, the postero-mesal parts of coxopleura, and the ventral side of all articles of the telopodites. Ultimate telopodites moderately swollen, ca. 1.3 times as wide as the penultimate. First genital sternite separated from pleurites by distinct sutures. Gonopods bi-articulate, with conical penis in between. Geographical distribution. G. arenarius is known only from the type locality, near Annaba, Algeria. Our direct examination of other specimens of the carpophagus species-complex collected throughout north-western Africa (from Morocco to Tunisia, including coastal and mountainous sites; listed under Material and methods) failed to detect other specimens of G. a re n a r i u s. Instead, these specimens confirm that north-western Africa is inhabited by at least two species in the carpophagus complex, one of which is G. arenarius. Records of G. arenarius from different localities in Croatia, Hungary and Romania have been listed synthetically by T��m��sv��ry (1880) and in more detail by Daday (1889). These have been repeatedly mentioned acritically by subsequent authors, and an additional record from Hungary has been given by Szab�� (1932) under the misspelled name arenius. However, all these old records have not been confirmed by modern authors (Matic 1972; Kos 1992; L. Danyi, pers. comm.), or by our preliminary examination of Geophilus specimens from throughout Europe. Matic (1972) suspected explicitly that the records from Romania should actually be referred to G. carpophagus. Taking into account the information given by Daday (1889), the specimens examined by him depart obviously from the syntypes of G. arenarius in major morphological features (complete chitin-lines, higher number of trunk segments, distinct carpophagus structure), so that they are obviously misidentified specimens of another species, possibly not in the carpophagus species-complex, more probably G. e l e c t r i c u s Linnaeus. Even the record by Szab�� (1932) is most probably to be referred to G. carpophagus, based on investigations on surrounding localities (L. Danyi, pers. comm.)., Published as part of Bonato, Lucio & Minelli, Alessandro, 2011, Geophilus arenarius, a long-misunderstood species in the still unresolved carpophagus species-complex (Chilopoda: Geophilidae), pp. 40-49 in Zootaxa 3114 on pages 41-44, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.207321, {"references":["Meinert, F. (1870) Myriapoda Musaei Hauniensis. Bitrag til Myriapodernes morphologi og systematik. I. Geophile. Naturhistorisk Tidsskrift, 7, 1 - 128.","Tomosvary, E. (1880) Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Myriopoden Ungarns. I. Die Chilopoden. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 3, 617 - 619.","Daday, E. (1889) Myriopoda regni Hungariae. Kiralyi Magyar Termeszettudomanyi Tarsulat, Budapest, 104 pp.","Verhoeff, C. (1896) Geophiliden und Scolopendriden aus Portugal und Tabelle europaischer Geophilus - Arten. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 19, 74 - 79, 81 - 89.","Attems, C. (1903) Synopsis der Geophiliden. Zoologische Jahrbucher, Abteilung fur Systematik, 18, 155 - 302.","Depoli, G. (1907) Analisi dei miriapodi componenti la fauna fiumana. Rivista Italiana di Scienze Naturali e Bollettino del Naturalista, 27, 23 - 27, 85 - 93.","Brolemann, H. W. (1921) Liste des myriapodes signales dans le nord de l'Afrique. Bulletin de la Societe des Sciences Naturelles et Physiques du Maroc, 1, 99 - 110.","Attems, C. (1929 a) Das Tierreich. 52 Myriapoda. I. Geophilomorpha. De Gruyter and Co., Berlin, Leipzig, 388 pp.","Attems, C. (1929 b) Die Myriopodenfauna von Albanien und Jugoslavien. Zoologische Jahrbucher, Abteilung fur Systematik, 56, 269 - 356.","Brolemann, H. W. (1932) Tableaux de determination des chilopodes signales en Afrique du Nord. Bulletin de la Societe d'Histoire Naturelle de l'Afrique du Nord, 23, 31 - 64.","Szabo, M. (1932) Die Myriopoden der Halbinsel Tihany. Arbeiten des Ungarischen Biologischen Forschungsinstitutes in Tihany, 5, 44 - 50.","Matic, Z., Negrea, S. & Prunescu, C. (1970) Considerations zoogeographiques sur la faune des Chilopodes de Roumanie. Bulletin du Museum d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, 41 (suppl. 2), 96 - 101.","Matic, Z. (1972) Clasa Chilopoda, Subclasa Epimorpha. Fauna Republicii Socialiste Romania 6. Academiei Republicii Socialiste Romania, Bucuresti, 220 pp.","Kos, I. (1992) A review of the taxonomy, geographical distribution and ecology of the centipedes of Yugoslavia (Myriapoda Chilopoda). Bericht des Naturwissenschaftlich-Medizinischen Vereins in Innsbruck, suppl. 10, 353 - 360.","Stoev, P. (1997) A check - list of the centipedes of the Balkan peninsula with some taxonomic notes and a complete bibliography (Chilopoda). Entomologica Scandinavica, suppl. 51, 87 - 105."]}

43. Geophilus carpophagus Leach, 1815 1) Geophilus sodalis Berg. Mein.: A. Costa 1885: 9. 2) Geophilus carpophagus Leach: Silvestri 1898: 686. 3) Geophilus carpophagus Leach: Attems 1903: 225. 4) Geophilus carpophagus Leach: Verhoeff 1925 a: 655. 5) Geophilus carpophagus Leach: Attems 1929: 163, fig. 169. 6) Geophilus carpophagus Leach, 1815: Minelli 1978 a: 157. 7) Geophilus carpofagus [sic] (Leach) [sic]: De Miranda Restivo 1982: 173. 8) Geophilus carpophagus Leach, 1815: Minelli 1983 a: 4. 9) Geophilus carpophagus Leach 1815: Minelli 1983 b: 406. 10) Geophilus carpophagus Leach: De Miranda Restivo & Guaita 1986: 34. 11) Geophilus carpophagus: Minelli & Iovane 1987: 28. 12) Geophilus carpophagus Leach, 1815: Foddai et al. 1995: 10. 13) Geophilus carpophagus Leach, 1815: Foddai et al. 1996: 361, tab. I. 14) Geophilus carpophagus Leach, 1815: Zapparoli & Minelli 2005: CD., Published as part of Zapparoli, Marzio, 2009, An annotated catalogue of the epigeic and cave centipedes (Chilopoda) of Sardinia *, pp. 56-168 in Zootaxa 2318 on page 137, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.192026, {"references":["Leach, W. E. (1815) A tabular view of the external characters of four classes of animals, which Linne arranged under Insecta; with the distribution of the genera composing three of these classes into orders, & c. and descriptions of several new genera. Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, 11, 306 - 400.","Costa, A. (1885) Notizie ed osservazioni sulla Geo-Fauna sarda. Memoria Quarta. Atti della Reale Accademia delle Scienze Fisiche e Matematiche di Napoli, serie seconda, 1 (13), 1 - 31.","Silvestri, F. (1898) Contributo alla conoscenza dei Chilopodi e dei Diplopodi di Sardegna. Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova (2), 18, 680 - 693.","Attems, C. (1903) Synopsys der Geophiliden. Zoologische Jahrbucher, Abteilung fur Systematik, Okologie und Geographie der Tiere, 18, 155 - 302.","Verhoeff, K. W. (1925 a) Supplement zur Systematik und geographische Verbreitung. 11 Heft (100 Lief). In: Bronn, H. G. (Ed.), 1902 - 1925 - Klassen und Ordnungen des Tierreichs. Gliederfussler: Arthropoda. Klasse Chilopoda. 5, 2. Akademische Verlagsgesellshaft n. b. H., Leipzig, VII + 725 pp. + 30 pls [pp. 539 - 666].","Attems, C. G. (1929) Geophilomorpha. Das Tierreich, 52. W. de Gruyter and Co., Berlin and Leipzig, XXIII + 388 pp.","Minelli, A. (1978 a) Zur Taxonomie und Chorologie der Chilopoden Italiens: Entwurf einer Monographie. Abhandlungen des Naturwissenschaftlichen Vereins in Hamburg N. F., 21 - 22, 149 - 159.","De Miranda Restivo, M. A. (1982) Studio sui Chilopodi della Sardegna Centrale. Bollettino della Societa Sarda di Scienze Naturali, 15 (21) [1981], 171 - 175.","Minelli, A. (1983 a) On Sardinian centipedes. Bollettino di Zoologia, 49, 1 - 16.","Minelli, A. (1983 b) Note critiche sui Chilopodi della Sardegna. Lavori della Societa Italiana di Biogeografia (n. s.), 8, 401 - 416.","De Miranda Restivo, M. A. & Guaita, L. (1986) Nuovo contributo alla conoscenza dei Chilopodi cavernicoli della Sardegna Sud-occidentale. Bollettino della Societa Sarda di Scienze Naturali, 25, 29 - 41.","Minelli, A. & Iovane, E. (1987) Habitat preferences and taxocenoses of Italian centipedes (Chilopoda). Bollettino del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Venezia, 37 [1986], 7 - 34.","Foddai, D., Minelli, A., Sheller, U. & Zapparoli, M. (1995) Chilopoda, Diplopoda, Pauropoda, Symphila. In: Minelli, A., Ruffo, S. & La Posta, S. (Eds), Checklist delle specie della fauna italiana, 32. Calderini, Bologna, pp. 1 - 35.","Foddai, D., Minelli, A. & Zapparoli, M. (1996) I chilopodi delle isole circumsarde nel contesto del popolamento insulare dell'area tirrenica s. l. Biogeographia, Lavori della Societa Italiana di Biogeografia (n. s.), 18 [1995], 357 - 376.","Zapparoli, M. & Minelli, A. (2005) Chilopoda. In: Ruffo, S. & Stoch, F. (Eds), Checklist e distribuzione della fauna italiana. Memorie del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona, 2 a serie, Sezione Scienze della Vita, 16, pp. 123 - 125 + CD-Rom."]}

44. Geophilus fucorum Br��lemann, 1909 a 1) Geophilus fucorum Br��lemann, 1909: Minelli 1983 a: 5 [pars?]. 2) Geophilus fucorum Br��l. 1909 [sic]: Minelli 1983 b: 406. 3) Geophilus fucorum (Br��lemann, 1909) [sic]: Minelli et al. 1994: 496. 4) Geophilus fucorum Br��lemann, 1909: Foddai et al. 1995: 10. 5) Geophilus fucorum Br��lemann, 1909: Foddai et al. 1996: 361, 361, tab. I. 6) Geophilus fucorum Br��lemann, 1909: Zapparoli & Minelli 2005: CD., Published as part of Zapparoli, Marzio, 2009, An annotated catalogue of the epigeic and cave centipedes (Chilopoda) of Sardinia *, pp. 56-168 in Zootaxa 2318 on page 138, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.192026, {"references":["Brolemann, H. W. (1909 a) Quelques Geophilides nouveaux des collections du Museum d'Histoire naturelle. Bulletin du Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 1909, 356 - 361.","Minelli, A. (1983 a) On Sardinian centipedes. Bollettino di Zoologia, 49, 1 - 16.","Minelli, A. (1983 b) Note critiche sui Chilopodi della Sardegna. Lavori della Societa Italiana di Biogeografia (n. s.), 8, 401 - 416.","Foddai, D., Minelli, A., Sheller, U. & Zapparoli, M. (1995) Chilopoda, Diplopoda, Pauropoda, Symphila. In: Minelli, A., Ruffo, S. & La Posta, S. (Eds), Checklist delle specie della fauna italiana, 32. Calderini, Bologna, pp. 1 - 35.","Foddai, D., Minelli, A. & Zapparoli, M. (1996) I chilopodi delle isole circumsarde nel contesto del popolamento insulare dell'area tirrenica s. l. Biogeographia, Lavori della Societa Italiana di Biogeografia (n. s.), 18 [1995], 357 - 376.","Zapparoli, M. & Minelli, A. (2005) Chilopoda. In: Ruffo, S. & Stoch, F. (Eds), Checklist e distribuzione della fauna italiana. Memorie del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona, 2 a serie, Sezione Scienze della Vita, 16, pp. 123 - 125 + CD-Rom."]}

45. Geophilus minimus Verhoeff, 1928 1) Geophilus minimus Verhoeff, 1928: Minelli 1983 a: 8. 2) Geophilus minimus Verh. 1928 [sic]: Minelli 1983 b: 406. 3) Geophilus minimus Verhoeff, 1928: Foddai et al. 1995: 10. 4) Geophilus minimus Verhoeff, 1928: Foddai et al. 1996: 361, tab. I. 5) Geophilus minimus Verhoeff, 1928: Zapparoli & Minelli 2005: CD., Published as part of Zapparoli, Marzio, 2009, An annotated catalogue of the epigeic and cave centipedes (Chilopoda) of Sardinia *, pp. 56-168 in Zootaxa 2318 on page 139, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.192026, {"references":["Verhoeff, K. W. (1928) Geophilomorphen-Beitrage und eine Lithobius-Form. Mitteilungen aus dem Zoologischen Museum in Berlin, 14, 229 - 286.","Minelli, A. (1983 a) On Sardinian centipedes. Bollettino di Zoologia, 49, 1 - 16.","Minelli, A. (1983 b) Note critiche sui Chilopodi della Sardegna. Lavori della Societa Italiana di Biogeografia (n. s.), 8, 401 - 416.","Foddai, D., Minelli, A., Sheller, U. & Zapparoli, M. (1995) Chilopoda, Diplopoda, Pauropoda, Symphila. In: Minelli, A., Ruffo, S. & La Posta, S. (Eds), Checklist delle specie della fauna italiana, 32. Calderini, Bologna, pp. 1 - 35.","Foddai, D., Minelli, A. & Zapparoli, M. (1996) I chilopodi delle isole circumsarde nel contesto del popolamento insulare dell'area tirrenica s. l. Biogeographia, Lavori della Societa Italiana di Biogeografia (n. s.), 18 [1995], 357 - 376.","Zapparoli, M. & Minelli, A. (2005) Chilopoda. In: Ruffo, S. & Stoch, F. (Eds), Checklist e distribuzione della fauna italiana. Memorie del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona, 2 a serie, Sezione Scienze della Vita, 16, pp. 123 - 125 + CD-Rom."]}

46. Geophilus osquidatum Br��lemann, 1909 b 1) Geophilus osquidatum Br��lemann, 1909: Minelli 1983 a: 5. 2) Geophilus osquidatum Br��l. 1909: Minelli 1983 b: 406. 3) Geophilus osquidatum: Minelli & Iovane 1987: 28, 30. 4) Geophilus osquidatum Br��lemann, 1909: Minelli et al. 1994: 496. 5) Geophilus osquidatum Br��lemann, 1909: Foddai et al. 1995: 10. 6) Geophilus osquidatum Br��lemann, 1909: Foddai et al. 1996: 361, tab. I. 7) Geophilus osquidatum Br��lemann, 1909: Zapparoli & Minelli 2005: CD., Published as part of Zapparoli, Marzio, 2009, An annotated catalogue of the epigeic and cave centipedes (Chilopoda) of Sardinia *, pp. 56-168 in Zootaxa 2318 on pages 139-140, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.192026, {"references":["Brolemann H. W. (1909 b) Materiaux pour servir a une faune des myriapodes de France. Feuille des Jeunes Naturalistes (4), 39, 208 - 212.","Minelli, A. (1983 a) On Sardinian centipedes. Bollettino di Zoologia, 49, 1 - 16.","Minelli, A. (1983 b) Note critiche sui Chilopodi della Sardegna. Lavori della Societa Italiana di Biogeografia (n. s.), 8, 401 - 416.","Minelli, A. & Iovane, E. (1987) Habitat preferences and taxocenoses of Italian centipedes (Chilopoda). Bollettino del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Venezia, 37 [1986], 7 - 34.","Foddai, D., Minelli, A., Sheller, U. & Zapparoli, M. (1995) Chilopoda, Diplopoda, Pauropoda, Symphila. In: Minelli, A., Ruffo, S. & La Posta, S. (Eds), Checklist delle specie della fauna italiana, 32. Calderini, Bologna, pp. 1 - 35.","Foddai, D., Minelli, A. & Zapparoli, M. (1996) I chilopodi delle isole circumsarde nel contesto del popolamento insulare dell'area tirrenica s. l. Biogeographia, Lavori della Societa Italiana di Biogeografia (n. s.), 18 [1995], 357 - 376.","Zapparoli, M. & Minelli, A. (2005) Chilopoda. In: Ruffo, S. & Stoch, F. (Eds), Checklist e distribuzione della fauna italiana. Memorie del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona, 2 a serie, Sezione Scienze della Vita, 16, pp. 123 - 125 + CD-Rom."]}

48. Geophilus punicus Silvestri, 1896 a 1) Geophilus flavus (De Geer) v. punicus Silv.: Silvestri 1898: 686. 2)? Geophilus flavidus Koch: Verhoeff 1925 a: 655. 3) Geophilus longicornis Leach: Attems 1929: 173 [pars]. 4) Geophilus longicornis longicornis Leach: Attems 1949: 108. 5) Necrophloeophagus longicornis (Leach, 1815): Minelli 1978 a: 157 [pars]. 6) Geophilus flavus v. punicus Silv.: Minelli 1983 b: 402. 7) Geophilus flavus (DeGeer, 1778): Foddai et al. 1995: 10 [pars]. 8) Geophilus flavus (DeGeer, 1778): Foddai et al. 1996: 361, tab. I. 9) Geophilus flavus (DeGeer, 1778): Zapparoli & Minelli 2005: CD [pars]. 10) Geophilomorpha [indet.]: Grafitti 2001 b: 36., Published as part of Zapparoli, Marzio, 2009, An annotated catalogue of the epigeic and cave centipedes (Chilopoda) of Sardinia *, pp. 56-168 in Zootaxa 2318 on page 141, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.192026, {"references":["Silvestri, F. (1896 a) Una escursione in Tunisia (Symphyla, Chilopoda, Diplopoda). Il Naturalista Siciliano, Nuova Serie, 1, 143 - 161 + 1 pl.","Silvestri, F. (1898) Contributo alla conoscenza dei Chilopodi e dei Diplopodi di Sardegna. Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova (2), 18, 680 - 693.","Verhoeff, K. W. (1925 a) Supplement zur Systematik und geographische Verbreitung. 11 Heft (100 Lief). In: Bronn, H. G. (Ed.), 1902 - 1925 - Klassen und Ordnungen des Tierreichs. Gliederfussler: Arthropoda. Klasse Chilopoda. 5, 2. Akademische Verlagsgesellshaft n. b. H., Leipzig, VII + 725 pp. + 30 pls [pp. 539 - 666].","Attems, C. G. (1929) Geophilomorpha. Das Tierreich, 52. W. de Gruyter and Co., Berlin and Leipzig, XXIII + 388 pp.","Attems, C. G. (1949) Die Myriopodenfauna der Ostalpen. Sitzungsberichte der osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, mathematisch-naturwissenschaftliche Klassen, Abteilung I, 158, 79 - 153.","Leach, W. E. (1815) A tabular view of the external characters of four classes of animals, which Linne arranged under Insecta; with the distribution of the genera composing three of these classes into orders, & c. and descriptions of several new genera. Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, 11, 306 - 400.","Minelli, A. (1978 a) Zur Taxonomie und Chorologie der Chilopoden Italiens: Entwurf einer Monographie. Abhandlungen des Naturwissenschaftlichen Vereins in Hamburg N. F., 21 - 22, 149 - 159.","Minelli, A. (1983 b) Note critiche sui Chilopodi della Sardegna. Lavori della Societa Italiana di Biogeografia (n. s.), 8, 401 - 416.","Foddai, D., Minelli, A., Sheller, U. & Zapparoli, M. (1995) Chilopoda, Diplopoda, Pauropoda, Symphila. In: Minelli, A., Ruffo, S. & La Posta, S. (Eds), Checklist delle specie della fauna italiana, 32. Calderini, Bologna, pp. 1 - 35.","Foddai, D., Minelli, A. & Zapparoli, M. (1996) I chilopodi delle isole circumsarde nel contesto del popolamento insulare dell'area tirrenica s. l. Biogeographia, Lavori della Societa Italiana di Biogeografia (n. s.), 18 [1995], 357 - 376.","Zapparoli, M. & Minelli, A. (2005) Chilopoda. In: Ruffo, S. & Stoch, F. (Eds), Checklist e distribuzione della fauna italiana. Memorie del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona, 2 a serie, Sezione Scienze della Vita, 16, pp. 123 - 125 + CD-Rom.","Grafitti, G. (2001 b) Determinazione e commento al materiale (faunistico) rinvenuto. In: De Waele, J., Onnis, C. & Solinas, P. (Eds), Storie di Sas Ballas e di altre grotte (Oliena). Sardegna Speleologica, Rivista della Federazione Speleologica Sarda, 10 (18), pp. 36 - 37."]}

47. Geophilus piae Minelli, 1983 1) Geophilus piae Minelli, 1983 a: 6, figs 1, 2. 2) Geophilus piae: Minelli 1983 b: 406. 3) Geophilus piae Minelli, 1983: Foddai et al. 1995: 10. 4) Geophilus piae Minelli, 1983: Foddai et al. 1996: 361, tab. I. 5) Geophilus piae Minelli, 1983: Zapparoli & Minelli 2005: CD., Published as part of Zapparoli, Marzio, 2009, An annotated catalogue of the epigeic and cave centipedes (Chilopoda) of Sardinia *, pp. 56-168 in Zootaxa 2318 on page 141, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.192026, {"references":["Minelli, A. (1983 a) On Sardinian centipedes. Bollettino di Zoologia, 49, 1 - 16.","Minelli, A. (1983 b) Note critiche sui Chilopodi della Sardegna. Lavori della Societa Italiana di Biogeografia (n. s.), 8, 401 - 416.","Foddai, D., Minelli, A., Sheller, U. & Zapparoli, M. (1995) Chilopoda, Diplopoda, Pauropoda, Symphila. In: Minelli, A., Ruffo, S. & La Posta, S. (Eds), Checklist delle specie della fauna italiana, 32. Calderini, Bologna, pp. 1 - 35.","Foddai, D., Minelli, A. & Zapparoli, M. (1996) I chilopodi delle isole circumsarde nel contesto del popolamento insulare dell'area tirrenica s. l. Biogeographia, Lavori della Societa Italiana di Biogeografia (n. s.), 18 [1995], 357 - 376.","Zapparoli, M. & Minelli, A. (2005) Chilopoda. In: Ruffo, S. & Stoch, F. (Eds), Checklist e distribuzione della fauna italiana. Memorie del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona, 2 a serie, Sezione Scienze della Vita, 16, pp. 123 - 125 + CD-Rom."]}

49. Geophilus richardi Br��lemann, 1904 1) Geophilus richardi Br��lemann, 1904: Minelli 1983 a: 8. 2) Geophilus richardi Br��l. 1904 [sic]: Minelli 1983 b: 406. 3) Geophilus richardi: Minelli & Iovane 1987: 30. 4) Geophilus richardi (Br��lemann, 1904) [sic]: Foddai et al. 1995: 10. 5) Geophilus richardi (Br��lemann, 1904) [sic]: Foddai et al. 1996: 361, tab. I. 6) Geophilus richardi (Br��lemann, 1904) [sic]: Zapparoli & Minelli 2005: CD., Published as part of Zapparoli, Marzio, 2009, An annotated catalogue of the epigeic and cave centipedes (Chilopoda) of Sardinia *, pp. 56-168 in Zootaxa 2318 on page 142, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.192026, {"references":["Brolemann, H. W. (1904) Chilopodes Monegasques. I. Liste des chilopodes du territoire de la principaute ou dans ses environs immediats. II. Description de geophilides nouveaux. III. Un nouvel Himantarium monstrueux. Bulletin du Musee Oceanographique de Monaco, 15, 1 - 15.","Minelli, A. (1983 a) On Sardinian centipedes. Bollettino di Zoologia, 49, 1 - 16.","Minelli, A. (1983 b) Note critiche sui Chilopodi della Sardegna. Lavori della Societa Italiana di Biogeografia (n. s.), 8, 401 - 416.","Minelli, A. & Iovane, E. (1987) Habitat preferences and taxocenoses of Italian centipedes (Chilopoda). Bollettino del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Venezia, 37 [1986], 7 - 34.","Foddai, D., Minelli, A., Sheller, U. & Zapparoli, M. (1995) Chilopoda, Diplopoda, Pauropoda, Symphila. In: Minelli, A., Ruffo, S. & La Posta, S. (Eds), Checklist delle specie della fauna italiana, 32. Calderini, Bologna, pp. 1 - 35.","Foddai, D., Minelli, A. & Zapparoli, M. (1996) I chilopodi delle isole circumsarde nel contesto del popolamento insulare dell'area tirrenica s. l. Biogeographia, Lavori della Societa Italiana di Biogeografia (n. s.), 18 [1995], 357 - 376.","Zapparoli, M. & Minelli, A. (2005) Chilopoda. In: Ruffo, S. & Stoch, F. (Eds), Checklist e distribuzione della fauna italiana. Memorie del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona, 2 a serie, Sezione Scienze della Vita, 16, pp. 123 - 125 + CD-Rom."]}

42. Geophilus alpinus Meinert, 1870 1) Geophilus proximus C. K.: Fanzago 1881 b: 12. 2) Orinophilus Vinciguerrae (Silv.): Silvestri 1898: 686. 3) Geophilus vinciguerrae Silv.: Attems 1903: 235. 4) Orinophilus vinciguerrae Silv. [sic]: Verhoeff 1925 a: 655. 5) Geophilus Henroti Manfredi 1953: 204. 6) Geophilus henroti Manfr., 1953: Cerruti 1968: 231. 7) Geophilus henroti Manfredi, 1956: Puddu & Pirodda 1974: 175. 8) Geophilus Henroti Manfredi, 1953: Manfredi 1976: 229. 9) Geophilus henroti Manfredi, 1956: Minelli 1978 a: 157. 10) Geophilus insculptus Attems, 1895: Minelli 1978 a: 157. 11) Geophilus vinciguerrae Silvestri, 1865: Minelli 1978 a: 158. 12) Geophilus henroti Manfredi, 1956: Minelli 1978 b: 296. 13) Geophilus henroti Manfredi, 1956: Cassola 1982: 634, 670, 691, 707. 14) Geophilus insculptus Attems, 1895: Minelli 1983 a: 5. 15) Geophilus insculptus Attems 1895: Minelli 1983 b: 404, 406. 16) Geophilus insculptus Attems, 1895: Minelli 1985: 31. 17) Geophilus insculptus: Minelli & Iovane 1987: 28, 30. 18) Geophilus insculptus Attems, 1895: Minelli et al. 1994: 496. 19) Geophilus insculptus Attems, 1895: Foddai et al. 1995: 10. 20) Geophilus henroti Manfredi, 1956: Leonardi 1995: 137. 21) Geophilus insculptus Attems, 1895: Foddai et al. 1996: 361, tab. I. 22) Geophilus insculptus Attems, 1895: Zapparoli & Minelli 2005: CD., Published as part of Zapparoli, Marzio, 2009, An annotated catalogue of the epigeic and cave centipedes (Chilopoda) of Sardinia *, pp. 56-168 in Zootaxa 2318 on page 135, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.192026, {"references":["Meinert, F. (1870) Myriapoda Musaei Hauniensis. Bitrag til Myriapodernes morphologi og systematik. I. Geophile. Naturhistorisk Tidsskrift, (3) 7, 1 - 128.","Fanzago, F. (1881 b) Miriapodi del Sassarese (parte descrittiva). Fascicolo 1. Tipografia Azuni, Sassari, 15 pp.","Silvestri, F. (1898) Contributo alla conoscenza dei Chilopodi e dei Diplopodi di Sardegna. Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova (2), 18, 680 - 693.","Attems, C. (1903) Synopsys der Geophiliden. Zoologische Jahrbucher, Abteilung fur Systematik, Okologie und Geographie der Tiere, 18, 155 - 302.","Verhoeff, K. W. (1925 a) Supplement zur Systematik und geographische Verbreitung. 11 Heft (100 Lief). In: Bronn, H. G. (Ed.), 1902 - 1925 - Klassen und Ordnungen des Tierreichs. Gliederfussler: Arthropoda. Klasse Chilopoda. 5, 2. Akademische Verlagsgesellshaft n. b. H., Leipzig, VII + 725 pp. + 30 pls [pp. 539 - 666].","Manfredi, P. (1953) VIII contributo alla conoscenza dei Miriapodi cavernicoli italiani. Atti della Societa Italiana di Scienze Naturali e del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Milano, 92, 76 - 108.","Cerruti, M. (1968) Materiali per un primo elenco di artropodi speleobii della Sardegna (In memoria di Saverio Patrizi). Fragmenta Entomologica, 5, 207 - 258.","Manfredi, P. (1956) Miriapodi cavernicoli del Marocco, della Sardegna e del Piemonte. Atti della Societa Italiana di Scienze Naturali e del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Milano, 95, 197 - 222.","Puddu, S. & Pirodda, G. (1974) Catalogo sistematico ragionato della fauna cavernicola della Sardegna. Rendiconti dell'Universita di Cagliari, 43 (3 - 4), 151 - 205.","Manfredi, P. (1976) Catalogo dei tipi del Museo di Storia Naturale di Milano. IV. I tipi dei Miriapodi (Diplopoda e Chilopoda). Atti della Societa Italiana di Scienze Naturali e del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Milano, 117, 214 - 238.","Minelli, A. (1978 a) Zur Taxonomie und Chorologie der Chilopoden Italiens: Entwurf einer Monographie. Abhandlungen des Naturwissenschaftlichen Vereins in Hamburg N. F., 21 - 22, 149 - 159.","Attems, C. (1895) Die Myriopoden Steiermarks. Sitzungsberichten der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, 104, 117 - 238.","Minelli, A. (1978 b) Note tassonomiche su Geophilus insculptus Att. e forme affini (Chilopoda). Animalia, 5, 295 - 305.","Cassola, F. (1982) Il popolamento cavernicolo della Sardegna. Lavori della Societa Italiana di Biogeografia (n. s.), 7 [1978], 615 - 755.","Minelli, A. (1983 a) On Sardinian centipedes. Bollettino di Zoologia, 49, 1 - 16.","Minelli, A. (1983 b) Note critiche sui Chilopodi della Sardegna. Lavori della Societa Italiana di Biogeografia (n. s.), 8, 401 - 416.","Minelli, A. (1985) Catalogo dei Diplopodi e dei Chilopodi cavernicoli italiani. Memorie del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona (II serie), sezione Biologica, 4, 1 - 50.","Minelli, A. & Iovane, E. (1987) Habitat preferences and taxocenoses of Italian centipedes (Chilopoda). Bollettino del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Venezia, 37 [1986], 7 - 34.","Foddai, D., Minelli, A., Sheller, U. & Zapparoli, M. (1995) Chilopoda, Diplopoda, Pauropoda, Symphila. In: Minelli, A., Ruffo, S. & La Posta, S. (Eds), Checklist delle specie della fauna italiana, 32. Calderini, Bologna, pp. 1 - 35.","Leonardi, M. (1995) Sezione di zoologia degli Invertebrati. In: Leonardi, M., Quaroni, A., Rigato, F. & Scali, S. (Eds), Le collezioni del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Milano. Atti della Societa italiana di Scienze naturali e del Museo civico di Storia naturale di Milano, 135 (1), [1994], pp. 123 - 147.","Foddai, D., Minelli, A. & Zapparoli, M. (1996) I chilopodi delle isole circumsarde nel contesto del popolamento insulare dell'area tirrenica s. l. Biogeographia, Lavori della Societa Italiana di Biogeografia (n. s.), 18 [1995], 357 - 376.","Zapparoli, M. & Minelli, A. (2005) Chilopoda. In: Ruffo, S. & Stoch, F. (Eds), Checklist e distribuzione della fauna italiana. Memorie del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona, 2 a serie, Sezione Scienze della Vita, 16, pp. 123 - 125 + CD-Rom."]}

Geophilus insculptus Attems, 1895 Geophilus aetnensis pollinensis Manfredi, 1957: 12, 32 Geophilus aetnensis pollinus (sic): Manfredi, 1957: 23 Geophilus aetnensis Verh. subsp. pollinensis: Manfredi, 1976: 229 MATERIALE ESAMINATO: 1 Male, " Colle Gaudolino, 18.VI.53, Ruffo", "636, Geophilus aetnensis Verh. pollinensis n. subsp., Typus " (MM). Secondo Minelli (1978), G. aetnensis Verhoeff, 1928 fa parte di un gruppo di specie gravitanti intorno a G. insculptus Attems, 1895. Personalmente, dopo aver confrontato i caratteri presentati dal tipo di G. aetnensis pollinensis Manfredi, 1957 con quelli del gruppo insculptus discussi da Minelli (1978), ritengo che anche questa sottospecie sia da includere in tale complesso., Published as part of Marzio Zapparoli, 1986, Osservazioni sui Chilopodi dell'Appennino lucano e calabrese (Chilopoda), pp. 311-340 in BIOGEOGRAPHIA-Lav. Soc. ital. Biogeoqr. N. S. 10 (1984) on page 315

Geophilus punctiventris (Newport, 1844) Geophilus punctiventris: Fanzago, 1875: 44, 54 Geophilus punctiventris: Fanzago, 1880: 267 G. punctiventris: Manfredi, 1933: 268 Geophilus punctiventris: Manfredi, 1957: 23, Published as part of Marzio Zapparoli, 1986, Osservazioni sui Chilopodi dell'Appennino lucano e calabrese (Chilopoda), pp. 311-340 in BIOGEOGRAPHIA-Lav. Soc. ital. Biogeoqr. N. S. 10 (1984) on page 316

Geophilus electricus (L., 1758) Geophilus electricus: Fanzago, 1875: 44, 50 Geophilus electricus: Fanzago, 1880: 267 GeophIlus electricus: Manfredi, 1933: 268 Geophilus electricus: Manfredi, 1957: 23, Published as part of Marzio Zapparoli, 1986, Osservazioni sui Chilopodi dell'Appennino lucano e calabrese (Chilopoda), pp. 311-340 in BIOGEOGRAPHIA-Lav. Soc. ital. Biogeoqr. N. S. 10 (1984) on page 316

Geophilus flavus (Degeer, 1778) Geophilus longicornis: Fanzago, 1875: 44, 53 Geophilus flavus: Fanzago, 1880: 267 G. longicornis: Manfredi, 1933: 268 Geophilus longicornis: Manfredi, 1957: 23, 33, Published as part of Marzio Zapparoli, 1986, Osservazioni sui Chilopodi dell'Appennino lucano e calabrese (Chilopoda), pp. 311-340 in BIOGEOGRAPHIA-Lav. Soc. ital. Biogeoqr. N. S. 10 (1984) on page 315

Geophilus proximus C.L. Koch, 1847 Geophilus proximus: Fanzago, 1875: 44, 52 Geophilus proximus: Fanzago, 1880: 267, 270 G. proximus: Manfredi, 1933: 268 Geophilus proximus: Manfredi, 1957: 23, Published as part of Marzio Zapparoli, 1986, Osservazioni sui Chilopodi dell'Appennino lucano e calabrese (Chilopoda), pp. 311-340 in BIOGEOGRAPHIA-Lav. Soc. ital. Biogeoqr. N. S. 10 (1984) on page 316

4. Geophilus rugulosus. Rostroth, bandf��rmig, gegen das Ende hin etwas schmaler, die R��ckenschilde bis zum 45ten glatt, mit zwei L��ngsfurchen, die folgenden runzelig, die Runzeln in regelm��ssigen Falten; die drei Eudschilde und die dicken H��ften der Hinterbeine dicht gek��rnt; die F��hler kurz und kegelf��rmig; 100 bis 116 Beine an jeder Seite, die Schlepp- oder Endbeine d��nn und fadenf��rmig. L��nge 3 Zoll, meistens etwas kleiner. (In der Gegend von Algier ziemlich gemein. Ich fand ihn am h��ufigsten im Kuhmist, seltener unter Steinen. M. W.), Published as part of D. MORITZ WAGNER, 1841, REISEN IN DER REGENTSCHAFT ALGIER IN DEN JAHREN 1836, 1837 UND 1838, LEIPZIG :VERLAG VON LEOPOLD VOSS, BUCHHAENDLER D. K. ACADEHIE D. WISSENSCHAFTEN ZU ST. PETERSBURG on pages 224-225

5. Geophilus fusatus. Rostbraun, Fresszangen und Beine etwas ins Ockergelbe ziehend. Die F��hler kurz und pfriemenf��rmig; der K��rper spindelf��rmig, die Ringe oben mit zwei etwas gen��herten Furchenstrichelchen und ein abgesetzter Strich seitw��rts dieser; die Seitenschiidchen schmal; der Afterschild oben kugelig gew��lbt; Beine 120 bis 122 an jeder Seite, das Endpaar pfriemenf��rmig mit dicken glatten und gl��nzenden H��ften. L��nge 5 bis 6 Zoll. Kleinere Thiere, welche eben so oft als obige, die Weibchen, vorkommen, haben eine L��nge von 3 bis 3 1/4 Zoll, sind ��brigens von derselben Gestalt, die F��hler und Schleppbeine aber merklich dicker. Diese z��hlen jederseits nur 97 bis 103 Beine. Wahrscheinlich sind die kleinern dickf��hlerigen die M��nnchen. (Geophilus fusatus fand ich auf der ganzen Algierer K��ste von Bona bis Oran, auch in den innern Gegenden, doch nirgends h��ufig. M. W.) Die Abbildungen der neuen Arachniden und Myriapoden s. auf Tab X und XI., Published as part of D. MORITZ WAGNER, 1841, REISEN IN DER REGENTSCHAFT ALGIER IN DEN JAHREN 1836, 1837 UND 1838, LEIPZIG :VERLAG VON LEOPOLD VOSS, BUCHHAENDLER D. K. ACADEHIE D. WISSENSCHAFTEN ZU ST. PETERSBURG on page 225