Research Article |
Corresponding author: Anh D. Nguyen ( ducanh410@yahoo.com ) Academic editor: Dragan Antić
© 2023 Anh D. Nguyen, Petra Sierwald, Stephanie Ware.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Citation:
Nguyen AD, Sierwald P, Ware S (2023) First record of the genus Touranella Attems, 1937 (Diplopoda, Polydesmida, Paradoxosomatidae) from Laos, with a description of a new species. ZooKeys 1145: 169-180. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.1145.98704
|
The paradoxosomatid genus Touranella Attems, 1937 is recorded from Laos for the first time, with a new species, Touranella champasak sp. nov., described here. The taxonomy of the genus is discussed, an identification key is provided, and the current distribution of all species is mapped.
Bioinventory, Champasak, diversity, millipede, new species, taxonomy
The genus Touranella Attems, 1937 was established for a single species, Touranella gracilis Attems, 1937.
This work reports the first record of Touranella in Laos, with a description of a new species. With this discovery, the geographical gap in the distribution of this genus is slightly narrowed (Fig.
Distribution of the genus Touranella Attems, 1937. 1 = Touranella pilosa Golovatch, 2016, 2 = Touranella himalayaensis Golovatch, 1994, 3 = Touranella gracilis Attems, 1937, 4 = Touranella trichosa Golovatch & Semenyuk, 2018, 5 = Touranella hirsuta Golovatch, 2009 and Touranella peculiaris Golovatch, 2009, 6 = Touranella cattiensis Golovatch & Semenyuk, 2010 and Touranella moniliformis Golovatch & Semenyuk, 2018, 7 = Touranella champasak sp. nov.
Examined material was collected by M. Thayer and her colleagues during their field expedition to Laos in 2008 and is currently housed in the Field Museum of Natural History (
The specimen was examined under a Leica M205 microscope. Line drawings were made using a camera lucida attached to the Leica M205 microscope. Colour images were taken using the Nikon 5100 imaging system with varying lens sizes under normal and ultraviolet (UV) light. Images were photographed in different layers and stacked using Helicon Focus v. 6.0, then grouped into plates in Photoshop v. 6.0. A gonopod was dissected for morphological observation and mounted on an aluminum stub, coated with gold for SEM imaging. SEM images were taken using a Leo Scanning Electron Microscope (Carl Zeiss SMT, Peabody, MA) at
INS Insect Division;
NP National Park.
Family Paradoxosomatidae Daday, 1889
Touranella Attems, 1937: 231.
Touranella
—
Touranella gracilis Attems, 1937, by original designation.
Holotype
: Laos • male; Champasak Province, Bolaven Plateau, Ban Thongvay (=Xekatam), vic. old logging road, N of village; 15°14.288'N, 106°31.891'E; 1,095 m elev.; 8–16 June 2008; A. Newton & M. Thayer leg.; selectively logged forest, FMHD#2008-037, flight intercept trap, ANMT site 1231;
The new species can be recognized by a submoniliform body; poorly developed paraterga; sparsely setose metaterga; the presence of a highly elevated, setose, trapeziform, sternal process between male coxae 4; a strongly reduced gonofemorite devoid of a femoral process; a somewhat twisted solenophore that distally sheaths a rod-shaped solenomere; and well-developed lamina medialis and lamina lateralis.
The species is most similar to Touranella moniliformis Golovatch & Semenyuk, 2018 from Cat Tien NP (Vietnam) by having a (sub-)moniliform body, poorly developed paraterga, and sparsely setose metaterga. The two species can be distinguished by the gonopod conformation, and the presence of a gonofemoral process in T. moniliformis (absent from the new species).
Regarding the absence of a gonofemoral process, the new species is similar to T. peculiaris Golovatch, 2009, but can be distinguished by a strongly reduced gonofemorite (vs considerably elongated in T. peculiaris).
The species epithet, “champasak”, is a noun in apposition and refers to the province name where the type was collected.
Holotype length ca 21.6 mm, width of midbody pro- and metazona about 1.5 mm and 1.9 mm, respectively.
Body brown and darkish brown, except several antennomeres; legs and sterna brownish yellow or yellow; posterior margins of prozonae and metazonae, anterior margins of metazonae, and transverse sulcus black; metaterga with a yellow axial band running from collum to telson (Fig.
Antenna long and slender, approximately reaching to segment 5 when extended back; antennomere 1 very short and robust (Fig.
Collum smooth and shiny, suboval, with two rows of setae: 3+3 anterior and 2+2 posterior. Paraterga small, broadly rounded lobe (Fig.
Body submoniliform. Prozonae and metazonae smooth, shiny (Figs
Paraterga (Figs
Epiproct (epi) (Fig.
Legs long and slender, about 1.7–1.8 times as long as midbody height. Prefemora not swollen. Femora without modification. Tarsal brushes (Fig.
Sterna (Fig.
Gonopods (Figs
Touranella champasak sp. nov., holotype A, B right gonopod, ventral view and mesal view, respectively C, D distal part of gonopod, ventral view and mesal view, respectively. Abbreviations: co = gonocoxite; pref = gonoprefemorite; fe = gonofemorite; sph = solenophore; sl = solenomere; ca = cannula. Scale bars: 0.1 mm (A–C), 0.02 mm (D).
Even though the distributional gap is slightly narrowed by the occurrence of this genus in Laos, more species most probably have yet to be discovered, at least in and between southern Vietnam and Nepal, including Laos, northern Thailand, and Myanmar (Fig.
Since the recent key provided by
1 | Metaterga smooth, without setae or with two setal rows | 2 |
– | Metaterga with three setal rows or densely setose | 3 |
2 | Gonopod femoral process present | T. moniliformis |
– | Gonopod femoral process absent | T. champasak sp. nov. |
3 | Gonopod femoral process absent | 4 |
– | Gonopod femoral process present | 7 |
4 | Metaterga beset with long setae placed inside minute pores/knobs. Solenophore with vestigial parabasal lobe, distinct, acuminate, apical uncus and a couple of characteristic subapical outgrowths | T. trichosa |
– | Metaterga with transverse rows of setae, instead of long hairs. Solenophore with or without a shoulder near base, and in a different shape | 5 |
5 | Metaterga with six rows of setae borne on small bosses | T. hirsuta |
– | Metaterga with three rows of setae | 6 |
6 | Gonofemorite short. Solenophore without a basal shoulder | T. cattiensis |
– | Gonofemorite considerably elongated. Solonophore with a basal shoulder | T. peculiaris |
7 | Gonofemorite carrying three processes | T. pilosa |
– | Gonofemorite carrying only a single process | 8 |
8 | Femoral process long. Basal shoulder of solenophore well developed | T. himalayaensis |
– | Femoral process short. Basal shoulder of solenophore less developed | T. gracilis |
Morphologically, the genus Touranella can be divided into two groups based on the presence or absence of the gonofemoral process. The first group includes the types species, T. gracilis, and four others, T. himalayaensis, T. pilosa, T. trichosa, and T. moniliformis. These species are characterized by the absence of the gonofemorite, or having it strongly reduced with a femoral process. They are also characterized by a solenophore with or without a lateral basal shoulder. The second group contains T. peculiaris, T. cattiensis, T. hirsuta, and T. champasak sp. nov., which are characterized by a very short or considerably elongated gonofemorite, without a femoral process. Given the absence of the femoral process and/or short gonofemorite, this second group is relatively close to the genus Yuennanina Attems, 1936. However, Touranella can be differentiated from Yuennanina using the first leg pair in males (femoral tubercles are absent from Touranella males, but present in Yuennanina males) and coxa (a thumb-like process is evident anteriorly in Yuennanina, but absent from Touranella). The relationship between Touranella with Yuennanina remains uncertain at this time.
The genus Touranella belongs to the tribe Alogolykini, created by
According to
We thank the Collaborative Invertebrate Laboratories at the Field Museum of Natural History for use of imaging equipment (National Science Foundation) for equipment training and support. The visit of AND was supported by Field Museum of Natural History (Chicago, USA). Two reviewers, Drs Sergei Golovatch (Russia) and Natdanai Likhitrakarn (Thailand), and the editor were acknowledged for their invaluable comments to significantly improve the quality of the manuscript. Dr. Stephanie Loria (American Museum of Natural History) was thanked for kindly checking and polishing the English.