Scolopocryptops melanostoma Newport 1845

1. Scolopocryptops melanostoma Newport, 1845

Figs 3–6

Otocryptops melanostomus: Attems, 1930: 263;

Scolopocryptops melanostoma: Chagas, 2010: 164; Scolopocryptops melanostoma: Schileyko, 2014: 154.

Material. E Indonesia, West Papua Province, S Bird’s Neck: 1 ad [spm 1, No. 7503], Kaimana 47 km E, Triton bay, environs Kamaka (former Warika) village, lake Kamakawalar, 03°45’33”S, 134°12’05”E, 90 m, primeval lowland rainforest on limestone, 09.09.2010, leg. M. Kalninsh; 1 ad [spm 2, No. 7504], Kaimana 7–9 km NW, 25– 200 m, primeval lowland rainforest on limestone, 05.09.2010, leg. DT; 1 ad [spm 3, СDT], Kaimana 40 km E, Triton bay, environs Lobo village, 03°45’00”S, 134°05’33”E, 700–900 m, primeval rainforest on limestone, 17.09.2010, leg. M. Kalninsh.

Range. Mexico; Central America (Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica, Panama), Greater Antilles (Puerto Rico, Haiti), Lesser Antilles (Martinique, Saint Vincent and Grenadines, Trinidad); South America (Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Brazil); Australasia (Fiji Islands), Indochina (Nicobar Island, Vietnam), Taiwan, Philippines, E Indonesia, Papua New Guinea.

Remarks. Spiracles of spm 1 and 2 were filled up by white thin thread-like parasites, which are superficially similar to nematods (Fig. 3) and were loosely attached to the host and easy to remove. These parasites were missing in spm 3.

Morphologically, the studied specimens fit well to the diagnosis of S. melanostoma as per Schileyko (2014), including also the presence of three longitudinal ridges at the mesal surface of forcipular tarsungula (see Fig. 2 in Schileyko (2014)) and basal transverse suture of process of forcipular trochanteroprefemur (Fig. 4; see also Fig. 3 in Schileyko (2014)).

West Papuan specimens are considerably larger than those from Venezuela used for comparison (the type locality of this species is St.Vincent in Lesser Antilles, thus the Venezuelan material can reasonably be used as a reference). Furthermore, they differ from the latter also by the following features: 1) tergites with irregular patches of a dark pigment (Fig. 5), 2) 4 (vs. 6) basal antennomeres being glabrous, 3) pretarsus of maxillae 2 with one (upper) very short but well-developed and darkly sclerotized accessory spine (Fig. 4), 4) coxopleural process (Fig. 6) conical (triangular) and comparatively short (cylindrical, slender and nearly twice as long as sternite 23 in the examined Venezuelan specimen) (see Fig. 6 in Schileyko (2014)), 5) tip of coxopleural process and a very narrow posterior area poreless (Fig. 6), 6) legs 1–20 (vs 1–18) with two tibial and one tarsal spur, leg 21 (vs 19) with tarsal spur only, leg 22 without spurs, and 7) all legs lacking accessory spines (though some rudiments recognizable at x85 magnification) vs legs 1–9 with minor accessory spines. Attems (1930: 259, 263) considered the lack of accessory spines as a diagnostic character for S. melanostoma.