Research Article
Print
Research Article
Lithobius (Monotarsobius) zhangi sp. n., a new species from Eastern China (Chilopoda, Lithobiomorpha, Lithobiidae)
expand article infoHuiqin Ma, Sujian Pei, Xiaojie Hou, Tiegang Zhu
† Scientific Research Office, Hengshui University, Hengshui, China
Open Access

Abstract

Lithobius (Monotarsobius) zhangi sp. n. (Lithobiomorpha: Lithobiidae), recently discovered from Nanshan Park, Yantai City, Shandong Province, and Wuyishan County, Nanping City, Fujian Province, from China, is described. Morphologically it resembles L. (M.) songi Pei, Ma, Shi, Wu, Zhou, 2011 from Province Hebei, China, but can be readily distinguished from the latter by antennae composed of 15+15–19+19 articles versus 19+19–21+21 articles, terminal claw of female gonopods inner tooth broader than the outer vs dorsal and ventral tooth about same in size, ventral plectrotaxy 01320, dorsal plectrotaxy 10210 in the 14th legs, 01210 and 10200 respectively in L. (M.) songi. A key to the Lithobius (Monotarsobius) species of China and Korea is presented.

Keywords

Lithobiidae, Lithobius (Monotarsobius) zhangi, Shandong Province, China, identification key

Introduction

The centipede subgenus Lithobius (Monotarsobius) Verhoeff, 1905 (Lithobiomorpha: Lithobiidae) is characterized by the presence of fused tarsi of legs 1–13 and antennal articles fixed at 20 or thereabouts (Eason 1992), this subgenus comprises 114 species known from Asia, Europe, and North Africa (Pocock 1895; Trotzina 1895; Attems 1901, 1904; Dobroruka 1960, 1979; Zalesskaja 1978; Farzalieva and Zalesskaja 2002; Farzalieva 2006; Zapparoli 2006; Zapparoli and Edgecombe 2011; Dányi and Tuf 2012).

Lithobiomorph centipedes of China are poorly known as only sixty-nine species and subspecies are hitherto known from the country (Attems 1938, 1953; Takakuwa 1939, 1940; Takakuwa and Takashima 1949; Chamberlin and Wang 1952; Wang 1959, 1963; Zalesskaja 1978; Wang and Mauriès 1996; Zhang 1996; Eason 1997, 1997; Chao 2005; Zapparoli 2006; Ma et al. 2007a, b, c; 2008a, b, c, d; Ma et al. 2009a, b; 2012a, b; 2013; 2014; Pei et al. 2010; 2011a, b). The subgenus Lithobius (Monotarsobius) is among the poorly studied taxa of China, with only ten species being up to now registered from its territory. None of them has hitherto been documented from Shandong Province. Herewith we describe a new species recently found in Shandong and Fujian Provinces.

Methods

All specimens were hand-collected under leaf litter or stones. The material was examined with the aid of a Motic-C microscope, made in China. The colour description is based on specimens in 75% ethanol, and body length is measured from anterior margin of the cephalic fig to posterior end of postpedal tergite. Type specimens are preserved in 75% ethanol and deposited in the department of Life Sciences, Hengshui University, Hengshui, China. The terminology of the external anatomy follows Bonato et al. (2010).

The following abbreviations are used in the text and the tables: T, TT = tergite, tergites; S, SS = sternite, sternites; C = coxa, Tr = trochanter, P = prefemur, F = femur, Ti = tibia, a = anterior, m = median, p = posterior.

Taxonomic part
Lithobiidae Newport, 1844

Lithobius (Monotarsobius) zhangi sp. n.

Figs 1–6

Material examined

Holotype. ♀ (Figure 1), body length 8.0 mm, cephalic fig 0.5 mm long, 0.5 mm broad, Nanshan Park, Yantai City, Shandong Province, 37°05'N, 121°04'E, 27 m, 5 July 2005, leg. Huiqin Ma. Paratypes. 2 ♀♀, same data as holotype.

Other material. 15 ♀♀, 2 ♂♂, Wuyishan County, Nanping City, Fujian Province, 27°43'N 118°01'E, 238 m, 10 August 2010, leg. Feng Zhang and Huiqin Ma.

Etymology

The specific name is a patronym in honor of the myriapodologist Professor Chongzhou Zhang, Academician at the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

Diagnosis

A Lithobius (Monotarsobius) species with body length 7.0–8.0 mm, antennae composed of 15–19 articles; 5–6 ocelli on each side, arranged in 2 irregular rows, the terminal ocellus comparatively large; Tömösváry’s organ moderately small, slightly smaller than adjoining ocelli; 2+2 coxosternal teeth; porodonts moderately slender, posterolateral to the most lateral teeth; posterior angles of all tergites without triangular projections; coxal pores 1222, oval to round; female gonopods with 2+2 small, coniform spurs; terminal claw of the third article tridentate; male gonopods short and small, with 1 long seta on the terminal segment.

Description

Body length: 7.0–8.0 mm, cephalic fig 0.5–0.6 mm long, 0.5–0.6 mm wide.

Colour: basal antennal articles lavender, the 7–8 article gradually turning to yellow-brown, distalmost article yellow-brown; tergites pale brown to chestnut-brown; cephalic fig, TT1, 14 and 15 yellow-brown; pleural region pale grey to lavender; sternites pale grey to gray; distal part of forcipules brown, basal and proximal parts of forcipules, forcipular coxosternite and SS 14 and 15 pale yellow-brown with greyish hue; all legs lavender, the distal of every article of all legs slightly dark, the tarsus of all legs yellow-brown.

Antennae: 15–19 articles (Figure 1); basal article slightly longer than wide, second one markedly longer than wide, following articles gradually shortening, distal article up to 2.0–2.5 times as long as wide. Abundant setae on the antennal surface, less so on the basal articles, gradually increasing in density to about sixth article, then more or less constant.

Cephalic fig smooth, convex, width approximately equal to length; tiny setae emerging from pores scattered very sparsely over the whole surface; frontal marginal ridge with shallow anterior median furrow; short to long setae scattered along the marginal ridge of the cephalic fig; lateral marginal ridge discontinuous, posterior marginal ridge moderately broader, straight or slightly bulging.

Five–six oval to rounded ocelli on each side (Figure 3) in two irregular rows; the terminal ocellus comparatively large; other ocelli about equal in size apart the ocelli adjoining to the ventral; all ocelli domed, translucent, usually darkly pigmented.

Tömösváry’s organ situated at the anterolateral margin of the cephalic fig, slightly smaller than the adjoining ocelli and lying well apart from them (Figure 3-To).

Coxosternite subtrapezoidal (Figure 2), anterior margin narrow; median diastema moderately deep, V-shaped; anterior margin with 2+2 teeth; porodonts slender, lying posterolateral to the most lateral teeth (Figure 4); some long setae scattered on the ventral side of coxosternite.

All tergites smooth, without wrinkles, backside slightly hunched; T 1 posterolaterally narrower than anterolaterally, generally trapeziform, narrower than T 3 and the cephalic fig, the cephalic fig slightly wider than T 3 or equal to T 3; posterior margin of T 1 straight or slightly convex, its posterior marginal ridge continuous; posterior margin of TT 3, 5, 8, 10, 12 and 14 shallow concave, posterior marginal ridge of TT 3, 5, 8, 10 and 12 discontinuous; all posterior angles generally rounded, without triangular projections; lateral marginal ridge of all tergites continuous (Figure 1); tiny setae scattered very sparsely over the surface.

Posterior side of sternites narrower than the anterior one, generally trapeziform, comparatively smooth, setae emerging from pores scattered very sparsely on the surface, slightly thicker setae on the surface of the anterior part of each sternite; A pair of longer setae approximately symmetrical on the surface of both the anterior and the posterior part of each sternite; 2–3 longer setae on both anterior lateral borders, 1–2 comparatively long setae scattered sparsely on posterior margin of sternites.

Legs strong, tarsal articulation not defined on legs 1–13, tarsal articulation well defined on legs 14–15; all legs with fairly long curved claws; anterior and posterior accessory spines on legs 1–14; anterior accessory spine moderately long and slender, the posterior one slightly strong; the anterior accessory spines form relatively large angles with the pretarsus, the posterior accessory spines form relatively small angles with the pretarsus; no anterior accessory spines on legs 15. Short to comparatively long setae scattered very sparsely over the surface of all segments of all legs, more setae scattered on the surface of tarsus, slightly thick setae arranged in a row on the ventral side of tarsus; legs 14 and 15 absence of secondary sexual characters on femur or tibia, obvious thicker and stronger than other legs, tarsus 1 about 3.3–4.5 times as long as wide, tarsus 2 about 65%–82% the length of tarsus on legs 15. Leg plectrotaxy as in Table 1.

Coxal pores 1222, round or slightly ovate, coxal pore field in a relatively flat surface.

Female S 15 anterolaterally broader than posterolaterally, generally trapeziform, posteromedially straight, generally yellow-brown; short to long setae scattered sparsely on the surface and the lateral margin, 2 longer setae on posterior lateral borders; sternite of genital segment usually well chitinised, wider than long; relatively long setae scattered over the ventral surface of the genital segment, few setae near S 15, regularly fringed with longer setae along the posterior margin; posterior margin of genital sternite deeply concave between the condyles of gonopods, except for a small, median approximately triangular bulge. Gonopods: first article fairly broad, bearing 7–8 long setae arranged in three irregular rows; 2+2 moderately small, blunt, coniform spurs, inner spur slightly smaller than the outer (Figure 4); second article with 3–4 rather long setae, arranged in two irregular rows on the ventral side, third article with 2 comparatively long setae lying on the ventral side, terminal claw tridentate, the inner broader than the outer (Figure 5).

Male S 15 posterolaterally narrower than anterolaterally, generally trapeziform, posteromedially straight, sparsely covered with short to long setae; the sternite of the genital segment wider than long, usually well sclerotised. Posterior margin quite deeply concave between the gonopods, without a medial bulge; comparatively long setae evenly scattered on the ventral surface of the genital segment, few setae near S 15, gonopod short, consisting of a small bulge, with two long setae, apically slightly sclerotised (Figure 6).

Habitat

The specimens were collected in a Larix forest. The species inhabits moderately moist habitats under roadside stones and forest floor.

Remarks

The new species is morphologically close to L. (M.) songi Pei, Ma, Shi, Wu, Zhou, 2011 from Province Hebei, China, with which it shares the following traits: 2+2 coxosternal teeth, 2+2 spurs of female gonopods and 1222 coxal pores, the terminal claw of the female gonopods tridentate. It can however be distinguished from the latter by antennae composed of 15+15–19+19 articles versus 19+19–21+21 articles, terminal claw of female gonopods inner tooth broader than the outer vs dorsal and ventral tooth about same in size, ventral plectrotaxy 01320, dorsal plectrotaxy 10210 in the 14th legs, 01210 respectively 10200 in L. (M.) songi. The new species is morphologically close to L. (M.) dziadoszi Matic, 1970, from Korea, with which it shares the following traits: antennae composed of 15–20 articles, 2+2 coxosternal teeth, 2+2 spurs of female gonopods, the terminal claw of the female gonopods tridentate. It can however be distinguished from the latter by 5–6 ocelli versus 7 ocelli, Tömösváry’s organ smaller than adjoining ocellus versus larger than adjoining ocellus, 1222 coxal pores other than 3333 coxal pores, male legs 15 absence of secondary sexual characters on femur versus presence secondary sexual characters, ventral plectrotaxy 01320, dorsal plectrotaxy 10210 in the 14th legs, 01321 respectively 10310 in L. (M.) dziadoszi. The new species is morphologically close to L. (M.) riedeli Matic, 1970, from Korea, with which it shares the following traits: antennae composed of 15–19 articles, 2+2 coxosternal teeth, 2+2 spurs of female gonopods, the terminal claw of the female gonopods tridentate. It can however be distinguished from the latter by Tömösváry’s organ smaller than adjoining ocellus versus larger than adjoining ocellus, 1222 coxal pores other than 2222 or 3333 coxal pores, male legs 15 absence of secondary sexual characters on femur versus presence secondary sexual characters, ventral plectrotaxy 01320, dorsal plectrotaxy 10210 in the 14th legs, 01210 respectively 10200 in L. (M.) riedeli. The new species is morphologically close to L. (M.) mroczkowskii Matic, 1970, from Korea, with which it shares the following traits: 5–6 ocelli, 2+2 coxosternal teeth, 2+2 spurs of female gonopods, male legs 15 absence of secondary sexual characters on femur. It can however be distinguished from the latter by antennae composed of 15–19 articles versus 20–21 articles, 1222 coxal pores other than 3343 or 4564 coxal pores, the terminal claw of the female gonopods tridentate other than simple, ventral plectrotaxy 01320, dorsal plectrotaxy 10210 in the 14th legs, 01332 respectively 10311 in L. (M.) mroczkowskii.

Figures 1–6.

Lithobius (Monotarsobius) zhangi sp. n., 1–5 holotype, female: 1 habitus, dorsal view, scale bar 1 mm; 2 forcipular segment, ventral view, scale bar 500 μm; 3 ocelli and Tömösváry’s organ (To), lateral view, scale bar 250 μm; 4 posterior segments and gonopods, ventral view, scale bar 500 µm; 5 terminal claw of right gonopod, dorsal view, scale bar 250 µm; 6 paratype, male: posterior segments and gonopods, ventral view, scale bar 500 µm.

Leg plectrotaxy of L. (M.) zhangi sp. n.

Legs Ventral Dorsal
C Tr P F Ti C Tr P F Ti
1 - - p am m - - p a a
2 - - p am m - - p ap a
3–9 - - - am m - - p ap ap
10 - - - am m - - p p ap
11 - - p am m - - p p ap
12 - - p am m - - mp p a
13 - - p am m - - mp p p
14 - m amp am - a - mp p -
15 - m amp am - a - mp - -

Key to the Chinese and Korean species of Lithobius (Monotarsobius)

To assist in the identification of the Chinese and Korean of Lithobius (Monotarsobius), the following key is offered. This key emphasizes characters that can be examined without high-magnification microscopy; moreover, these characters are specific to the taxa occurring in China and Korea.

1 1111 coxal pores L. (M.) monoforaminis Ma, Pei, Wu, Lin, Gai, 2012
At least 1222 coxal pores 2
2 4–6 coxal pores 3
At most 3 coxal pores. 5
3 8–11 ocelli on each side of cephalic fig L. (M.) crassipes L. Koch, 1862
5–6 ocelli on each side of cephalic fig 4
4 5555 coxal pores, 3+3, 4+4, 3+4 spurs of female gonopods L. (M.) ramulosus (Takakuwa, 1941)
3343 or 4564 coxal pores, 2+2 spurs of female gonopods L. (M.) mroczkowskii Matic, 1970
5 Four ocelli on each side of cephalic fig, 17+17 antennal articles L. (M.) crassus (Loksa, 1965)
Five or more ocelli on each side of cephalic fig, antennal not less than 18+18 articles 6
6 Tömösváry’s organ smaller than adjoining ocellus 7
Tömösváry’s organ larger than adjoining ocellus or about same in size 8
7 With anterior spine on prefemur on legs 14–15 L. (M.) zhangi sp. n.
Without anterior spine on prefemur on legs 14–15 L. (M.) songi Pei, Ma, Shi, Wu, Zhou, 2011
8 male legs 15 presence secondary sexual characters, the terminal claw of the female gonopods tridentate 9
male legs 15 absence secondary sexual characters, the terminal claw of the female gonopods not tridentate 10
9 Ventral plectrotaxy 01210, dorsal plectrotaxy 10200 in the 14th legs L. (M.) riedeli Matic, 1970
Ventral plectrotaxy 01321, dorsal plectrotaxy 10310 in the 14th legs L. (M.) dziadoszi Matic, 1970
10 Tömösváry’s organ larger than the biggest ocellus L. (M.) holstii (Pocock, 1895)
Tömösváry’s organ smaller than the biggest ocellus 11
11 With one protuberance at the end of the dorsal of tibia of 15 legs in male L. (M.) ferganensis (Trotzina, 1894)
Without protuberance at the end of the dorsal of tibia of 15 legs in male 12
12 With posterior spine on prefemur on legs 11–13 L. (M.) obtusus (Takakuwa, 1941)
Without posterior spine on prefemur on legs 11–13 L. (M.) subspinipes Ma, Pei, Zhu, Zhang, Liu, 2009

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC Grant No. 31172057 and 30900131). We are grateful to Dr. Gregory D. Edgecombe, London, U. K., and Dr. Pavel Stoev, Sofia, Bulgaria, for their hospitality and everlasting help during our research, respectively. We thank Dr. Marzio Zapparoli, Viterbo, Italy, Dr. Rowland M. Shelley, North Carolina, USA, and Dr. His-Te Shih, Taichung, China, for providing us with invaluable literature. Thanks must go to Dr. Zi-Zhong Yang and Dr. Zhi-Sheng Zhang for their help in preparing the paper.

References

  • Attems C (1901) Myriopoden. In: Horváth G (Ed.) Zoologische Ergebnisse der dritten asiatischen Forschungsreise des Grafen Eugen Zichy, Volume 2. Karl W. Hiersemann, Leipzig, 275–310.
  • Attems C (1904) Central- und hoch-asiatische Myriopoden. Gesammelt im Jahre 1900 von Dr. von Almassy und Dr. von Stummer. Zoologische Jahrbücher Abteilung Systematik 20: 113–130.
  • Attems C (1938) Die von Dr. C. Dawydoff in Französisch Indochina gesamelten Myriopoden. Memoires du Muséum National d´Histoire naturelle 6: 187–354.
  • Attems C (1953) Myriopoden von Indochina. Expedition von Dr C. Dawydoff. Mémoires du Muséum National d´Histoire Naturelle 5: 131–199.
  • Bonato L, Edgecombe GD, Lewis JGE, Minelli A, Pereira LA, Shelley RM, Zapparoli M (2010) A common terminology for the external anatomy of centipedes (Chilopoda). ZooKeys 69: 17–51. doi: 10.3897/zookeys.69.737
  • Chamberlin RV, Wang YHM (1952) Some records and descriptions of chilopods from Japan and other Oriental areas. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 65: 177–188.
  • Chao JL (2005) Review and development of study on Chilopoda of Taiwan. Journal of Endangered Wild Animal 9: 33–41.
  • Dányi L, Tuf IH (2012) Lithobius (Monotarsobius) franciscorum sp. nov., a new lithobiid species from the Altai, with a key to the Central Asian species of the subgenus (Chilopoda: Lithobiomorpha). Zootaxa 3182: 16–28.
  • Dobroruka LJ (1960) Über eine kleine Chilopoden-Ausbeute aus der Mongolei. Acta Arachnologica 17: 15–18. doi: 10.2476/asjaa.17.15
  • Dobroruka LJ (1979) Zur weiteren Kenntnis der zentralasiatischen Chilopoden. Věstník Československé společnosti zoologické 43: 161–164.
  • Eason EH (1992) On the taxonomy and geographical distribution of the Lithobiomorpha. In: Meyer E, Thaler K, Schedl W (Eds) Advances in Myriapodology. Berichte des naturwissenschaftlich-medizinischen Vereins in Innsbruck, Supplement 10: 1–9.
  • Eason EH (1997) On some Lithobiomorpha from the mountains of Kirghizia and Kazakhstan (Chilopoda). Arthropoda Selecta 6: 117–121.
  • Farzalieva GS (2006) New species of the lithobiid genus Lithobius (Monotarsobius) (Chilopoda: Lithobiomorpha: Lithobiidae) from Eastern Kazakhstan. Arthropoda Selecta 15: 99–117.
  • Farzalieva GS, Zalesskaja NT (2002) On two remarkable species of lithobiid centipedes (Chilopoda: Lithobiomorpha: Lithobiidae) from steppe of the southern Urals, Russia. Arthropoda Selecta 11: 265–269.
  • Ma H, Pei S, Hou X, Zhu T, Wu D, Gai Y (2014) An annotated checklist of Lithobiomorpha of China. Zootaxa 3847(3): 56–62. doi: 10.11646/zootaxa.3847.3.2
  • Ma H, Pei S, Li Y, Shi B (2012a) Discovery of the subgenus Lithobius (Sigibius) Chamberlin, 1913 (Chilopoda: Lithobiomorpha: Lithobiidae) in East Asia: A review the Chinese species. Zootaxa 3348: 56–62.
  • Ma H, Pei S, Wu DGai Y (2012b) Lithobius (Monotarsobius) monoforaminis sp. n., a new species of lithobiid centipede from central China (Chilopoda, Lithobiomorpha, Lithobiidae). Zookeys 193: 79–87. doi: 10.3897/zookeys.193.2802
  • Ma H, Pei S, Wu D, Gai Y (2013) A new lithobiid centipede of Lithobius (Ezembius) (Lithobiomorpha) from China. Oriental Insects 1: 1–6. doi: 10.1080/00305316.2012.753763
  • Ma H, Song D, Zhu M (2007a) A new genus and two new species of lithobiid centipedes (Chilopoda: Lithobiomorpha) from China. Zootaxa 1460: 25–34.
  • Ma H, Song D, Zhu M (2007b) Review of Cermatobius Haase, 1885 (Chilopoda: Henicopidae) of China and neotype designation for Cermatobius longicornis (Takakuwa, 1939). Zootaxa 1608: 21–30.
  • Ma H, Song D, Zhu M (2007c) A New Species of the Genus Validifemur Ma, Song, Zhu, 2007 (Chilopoda: Lithobiomorpha) from China. Arthropoda Selecta 16(2): 1–6.
  • Ma H, Song D, Zhu M (2008b) A New Species of Australobius Chamberlin, 1920 (Lithobiomorpha: Lithobiidae) from China. Oriental Insects 42: 335–340. doi: 10.1080/00305316.2008.10417558
  • Ma H, Song D, Zhu M (2008c) A review of the Chinese species of Bothropolys Wood, 1862 (Chilopoda: Lithobiomorpha: Lithobiidae). Zootaxa 1786: 35–47.
  • Ma H, Song D, Zhu M (2008d) Two new species of the genus Bothropolys Wood, 1862 (Chilopoda: Lithobiomorpha: Lithobiidae) from China. Entomologica Fennica 19(4): 248–256.
  • Ma H, Pei S, Zhu M (2009a) A New Species of the Genus Hessebius Verhoeff, 1941 (Lithobiomorpha: Lithobiidae) from China. Entomological News 120(2): 195–200. doi: 10.3157/021.120.0211
  • Ma H, Pei S, Zhu M, Zhang G, Liu L (2009b) A new species of Lithobius (Monotarsobius) Verhoeff, 1905 (Lithobiomorpha: Lithobiidae) from China. Entomological News 120(3): 313–318. doi: 10.3157/021.120.0310
  • Matic Z (1970) Contribution à la connaissance de Lithobides de Corée. Annls. zool. Warszawia 28: 55–63.
  • Pei S, Ma H, Shi B, Wu D, Gai Y (2011a) A new centipede species of Lithobius Leach (Lithobiomorpha: Lithobiidae) from China. Oriental Insects 45(1): 108–114. doi: 10.1080/00305316.2011.590642
  • Pei S, Ma H, Shi B, Wu D, Zhou W (2011b) A new species of Lithobius (Monotarsobius) Verhoeff, 1905 (Lithobiomorpha, Lithobiidae) from China. ZooKeys 82: 59–66.
  • Pei S, Ma H, Zapparoli M, Zhu M (2010) A review of the Chinese species of Hessebius Verhoeff, 1941 (Chilopoda: Lithobiomorpha: Lithobiidae). Zootaxa 2631: 51–61.
  • Pocock RI (1895) Report upon the Chilopoda and Diplopoda obtained by P. W. Bassett-Smith Esq. Surgeon R. N. and J. J. Walker Esq. R. N. during the cruise in the Chinese seas of H. M. S. “Penguin” Commander W. U. Moore commanding. Annals and Magazine of Natural History 6(15): 346–372. doi: 10.1080/00222939508677895
  • Takakuwa Y (1939) 9 Bothropolys-Arten aus Japan. Transactions of the Natural History Society of Formosa 29(188): 103–110.
  • Takakuwa Y (1940) Class Chilopoda, Epimorpha, Lithobiomorpha. Fauna Nipponica Vol. 9 Fas. 8 No. (3). Sanseido Book Store, Tokyo, 104 pp.
  • Takakuwa Y, Takashima H (1949) Myriapods collected in Shansi, North China. Acta Arachnologica 11(1–2): 51–69. doi: 10.2476/asjaa.11.51
  • Trotzina A (1895) Vier neue Lithobius-Arten aus Central Asia. Horae Societatis Entomologicae Rossicae 28: 247–253.
  • Wang D, Mauries JP (1996) Review and perspective of study on myriapodology of China. In: Geoffroy JJ, Mauries JP, Duy-Jacquemin MN (Eds) Acta Myriapodologica. Mémoires du Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle 169: 81–99.
  • Wang YHM (1959) On Chilopoda from Taiwan with a new lithobid. Quarterly Journal of the Taiwan Museum 12(3–4): 195–199.
  • Wang YHM (1963) Millipedes and Centipedes of Quemoy, Fukien Province and Taiwan island, Botel Tobago (Lan Yu), Taiwan Province and of Singapore. Quarterly Journal of the Taiwan Museum 16(1–2): 89–96.
  • Zalesskaja NT (1978) Identification book of the lithobiomorph centipedes of the USSR (Chilopoda: Lithobiomorpha). Moscow, Nauka Publ. House, 212 pp. [in Russian]
  • Zapparoli M, Edgecombe GD (2011) Order Lithobiomorpha. In: Minelli A (Ed.) Myriapoda, Vol.1. Brill, Leiden, Boston, 371–389.
  • Zhang C (1996) Chilopoda: Lithobiomorpha. In: Wu S, Feng Z (Eds) The biology and human physiology in the Hoh Xil region. Sci. Press, Beijing, 244–251.