Lamyctes emarginatus

Lamyctes emarginatus (Newport, 1844) Henicops emarginatus Newport 1844: 96 Lamyctes fulvicornis Meinert 1868: 267 L. emarginatus , Mercurio 2010: 38 (complete references) Mercurio (2010) recorded L. emarginatus from Alaska, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Michigan, Neb...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Shear, William A.
Format: Other/Unknown Material
Language:unknown
Published: Zenodo 2018
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5969785
http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03FF87B7FFD1FF9541EAFE1D1E3EFB90
Description
Summary:Lamyctes emarginatus (Newport, 1844) Henicops emarginatus Newport 1844: 96 Lamyctes fulvicornis Meinert 1868: 267 L. emarginatus , Mercurio 2010: 38 (complete references) Mercurio (2010) recorded L. emarginatus from Alaska, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Michigan, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah, and Wisconsin in the U.S.; and Newfoundland and Ontario in Canada. It seems to favor localities near water (Chamberlin 1912), and the northernmost states. Males have not been collected in North America and populations are probably thelytokous (Enghoff 1975). Lamyctes fulvicornis Meinert, frequently cited from North America, is a junior synonym (Zapparoli & Shelley 2000, Hollington & Edgecombe 2004, Mercurio 2010). Zapparoli and Shelley (2000) describe the range of variation in the species: up to 11.5 mm long, 25–28 (31) antennal articles, 2+2 coxosternal teeth (some of the specimens I have examined have 3 + 3 teeth, the outer tooth being very small and difficult to see except with high magnification), coxal pores ranging from 2, 2, 2, 1 to 3, 3, 3, 3. Perusal of the following notes will show that all of the supposedly native American species fall within this range of variation. Although Chamberlin described each of the following species as having 3+3 forcipular coxosternal teeth, the third (outermost) tooth is either very small or not present on specimens that I examined. Other variations, such as pore counts and antennomere numbers, could be explained by a failure to distinguish between late epimorphic stages. Published as part of Shear, William A., 2018, The centipede family Anopsobiidae new to North America, with the description of a new genus and species and notes on the Henicopidae of North America and the Anopsobiidae of the Northern Hemisphere (Chilopoda, Lithobiomorpha), pp. 259-283 in Zootaxa 4422 (2) on page 266, DOI:10.11646/zootaxa.4422.2.6, http://zenodo.org/record/1455619