Eötvös Loránd University, Department of Systematic Zoology and Ecology Doctoral School of Biology Head of the Doctoral School: Dr. Anna Erdei, Member of HAS, University Professor Doctoral Program of Zoosystematics, Ecology, Hidrobiology Head of the Program: Dr. Klára Dózsa-Farkas, DSc TAXONOMICAL AND FAUNISTIC REVIEW OF THE CENTIPEDES (CHILOPODA) OF HUNGARY PhD Theses László Dányi Supervisor: Dr. Zoltán Korsós, CSc Hungarian Natural History Museum 2008
INTRODUCTION, AIMS Hungarian myriapodology looks back onto a significant past, and also centipede research has started already at the end of the 19 th century. The first results were summarized in Robert Latzel s work (1880) and then in Jenő Daday s (1889) monography. Later it was Imre Loksa (1955) who discussed the order Lithobiomorpha in the entire Carpathian Basin. However, no work comprising the whole of the Hungarian chilopodes and the entire territory of the country has been published since Daday s book. Both Latzel s and Daday s data, and those published during the following century, too, needed a revision, from a taxonomical as well as from a geopolitical point of view. In the past decades, centipede taxonomy underwent numerous significant changes. These refer to general conceptual questions on the one hand, and, on the other hand, put a lot of earlier errors and uncertainties right. As a result, considerable changes took place also in nomenclature. These changes had to be applied finally to the Hungarian centipede fauna. At the time I began my work, it was still Daday s work that was quoted by international literature when referring to Hungary in comprehensive zoogeographic essays, whereas the majority of the adjacent countries had already an up-to-date checklist. Apart from this, the degree to which Hungary s fauna was explored lagged also far behind that of other parts of Europe: there were only data from 14 % of all UTM squares covering Hungary. In the light of the above, my aims were as follows: To collect and review all data in the literature that refers to the present territory of Hungary To revise the material that was described in the literature and which could still be found in collections To clear the taxonomical questions concerning Hungarian centipede species To assess the morphological features of certain species more thoroughly To explore the country s centipede fauna further To give UTM based maps of the Hungarian occurrences of each species To compile an up-to-date checklist of Hungarian centipedes To construct an identification key in Hungarian with all species found or expected to be found in the country
MATERIAL AND METHODS I started my own collections from 1999 on, mainly by singling and sifting. I collected more than 2,500 individuals in Hungary and examined additional material from the Hungarian Natural History Museum, the Mátra Museum in Gyöngyös and the Bakony Natural History Museum in Zirc (altogether 6,033 individuals). For comperative studies, I also looked at centipedes from the Myriapoda Collection of the Natural History Museum of Vienna. Apart from Hungarian items, I examined 2,000 further specimens from adjacent countries, which were mostly collected by myself. A significant part of the species found there do also occur in Hungary. The collected animals were preserved in 70 % ethanol. For storage, 1-2 % glycerine was added to the ethanol. The material is deposited in the Myriapoda Collection of the Hungarian Natural History Museum. For examining the animals, I used Zeiss Citoval 2 and Nikon SMZ-800 binoculars, a Wild M20 biological microscope as well as a Hitachi SN 2600 scanning electron microscope. For checking certain features, I made microscopical preparations. In order to make certain structures transparent, I soaked them in a solution (100 g lactic acid + 8 g gelatine and pure lactic acid mixed 1:3) which is also used for bleaching springtails. Drawings were prepared using a camera lucida and binocular photographs were taken on a Leica MZ75 binocular with a Nikon Coolpix 900 digital camera. UTM maps were drawn with the Biotér 2.0 software. For each species the following information is provided: Results of the review of data from the literature are given in the synonym list. This includes all literature in which data referring to Hungary can be found, according to their genus and species names as given in the quoted literature. Results of the revision of items that were described in the literature and which could still be found in collections are also given in the synonym list. Literature which does not contain any data from Hungary, but is important from the species taxonomical point of view, is also named in the synonym list, together with references I used for identifying the given taxon. The taxonomical and faunistic questions referring to the species are discussed. A short diagnosis is given for each taxon. All known Hungarian records are plotted on UTM maps and my own records are listed in detail in the Appendix.
The species s whole distribution area is overviewed, and their occurrence in Hungary evaluated in this light. In addition to the species which have been shown to occur in Hungary up to now, I also looked at some species with Hungarian relevance and/or which can be expected to be found in Hungary in the future.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Reviewing the data from literature, I compiled the complete centipede checklist of Hungary, which comprises 59 taxa. Based on the revision of earlier authors material as well as on zoogeographical evidence, I excluded nine species from the fauna-list of Hungary (Lithobius castaneus Newport, 1844, Lithobius peregrinus Latzel, 1880, Lithobius stygius Latzel, 1880, Theatops erythrocephalus (C.L. Koch, 1847), Stigmatogaster subterranea (Shaw 1789) Nannophilus eximius (Meinert, 1870), Pleurogeophilus mediterraneus (Meinert, 1870), Geophilus arenarius Meinert, 1870, Henia vesuviana (Newport, 1845)). Furthermore, I questioned the occurrence of Henia bicarinata (Meinert, 1870) in Hungary. 2. I found two species new to the fauna of Hungary (Lithobius cyrtopus Latzel, 1880, Dicellophilus carniolensis (C.L. Koch, 1847). The new record of D. carniolensis represents also the first record of the suborder Placodesmata in Hungary. 3. From adjacent countries, I showed two new taxa to be present in the fauna of Slovakia and three taxa new to Romania (Lithobius tenebrosus setiger Kaczmarek, 1977 and Stenotaenia sorrentina (Attems, 1903), as well as L. tenebrosus setiger, Geophilus oligopus (Attems, 1895) and Strigamia pusilla (Sseliwanoff, 1884), respectively). G. oligopus is also new to the whole of the Carpathians. 4. I determined the unidentified material of the Hungarian Natural History Museum, the Mátra Museum in Gyöngyös and the Bakony Natural History Museum in Zirc. 5. I collected a considerable amount of material, resulting in many new species records. Out of all these, the discovery of Scolopendra cingulata Latreille, 1829 in the Bakony Mts. has to be highlighted, as well as clarifying the situtation of the Lithobius erythrocephalus C.L. Koch, 1847 Lithobius schuleri Verhoeff, 1925 species pair in Hungary. Regarding taxa already reported from Hungary, I provided the first reliable records of Lithobius borealis Meinert, 1868, and Lithobius lucifugus lucifugus L. Koch, 1862 and the second (and further) Hungarian records for several other taxa (Lamyctes emarginatus (Newport, 1844), Lithobius burzenlandicus Verhoeff, 1931, Lithobius lapidicola Meinert, 1872, Geophilus carpophagus Leach, 1815). My work enhanced the degree to which the Hungarian centipede fauna is explored from 14 % to 33 % of all UTM squares covering the country.
6. In my work, I showed the following synonymys: The subspecies Lithobius tenebrosus fennoscandius Lohmander, 1948 is a junior synonym of Lithobius luteus Loksa, 1948. The subspecies Lithobius pusillus novemoculatus Loksa, 1953 is a junior synonym of Lithobius lapidicola Meinert, 1872. The subspecies Lithobius nodulipes scarabanciae Loksa, 1948 is a junior synonym of Lithobius nodulipes Latzel, 1880. The subspecies Lithobius nigrifrons sulcatipes Loksa, 1948 is a junior synonym of Lithobius tenebrosus Meinert, 1872. Further, I confirmed the following, earlier controversial synonymys: The subspecies Clinopodes flavidus polytrichus Attems, 1903 is a junior synonym of Clinopodes flavidus flavidus C.L. Koch, 1847. The subspecies Lithobius forficatus mecsekensis Verhoeff, 1901 is a junior synonym of Lithobius parietum Verhoeff, 1899. 7. I set up a new combination (Lithobius stygius infernus Loksa, 1948 = Lithobius lucifugus infernus Loksa, 1948 comb. n.). 8. I showed two nomina nuda (Mecistocephalus spinipes Tömösváry, 1880 és Monotarsobius microps pannonicus Loksa, 1966). 9. I declared four taxa being nomina dubia: Lithobius aeruginosus batorligetiensis Loksa, 1953 Lithobius dubius Tömösváry, 1880 Lithobius hungaricus Daday, 1889 Lithobius tenuipes Daday, 1889 10. I made a redescription of Geophilus oligopus (Attems, 1895), which can be expected to be found in the future in Hungary. 11. Based on new collections and data from literature, ecological features of several species could be described. 12. I constructed an identification key with all species which have been found in the country or are expected to be found.
PUBLICATIONS RELATED TO THE TOPIC OF THE DISSERTATION: 1. DÁNYI, L. & KORSÓS, Z. (2002a): Eredmények a Szigetköz Lithobiomorpha- és Scolopendromorpha- (Chilopoda) faunájának kutatásában. [Results of the research on the Lithobiomorph and Scolopendromorph (Chilopoda) fauna of the Szigetköz area in Hungary.] Folia Historico-Naturalia Musei Matraensis 26: 137-140. 2. DÁNYI, L. & KORSÓS, Z. (2002b): Lithobius cyrtopus Latzel, 1880 (Chilopoda: Lithobiomorpha, Lithobiidae), a magyar faunára új százlábú a Zemplénből. (Lithobius cyrtopus Latzel, 1880 (Chilopoda: Lithobiomorpha, Lithobiidae), from the Zemplén Mts. new to the fauna of Hungary.) Folia Entomologica Hungarica 63: 186-188. 3. KORSÓS, Z. & DÁNYI, L. (2002a): A tömördi talajcsapdák százlábú (Chilopoda) és ikerszelvényes (Diplopoda) állatai. (Chilopoda and Diplopoda species from the ground traps in Tömörd.) Cinege, Vasi Madártani Tájékoztató 7: 42-43. 4. KORSÓS, Z. & DÁNYI, L. (2002b): Millipedes (Diplopoda) and centipedes (Chilopoda) of the Fertő-Hanság National Park, Hungary. In: MAHUNKA, S. (ed.): Fauna of the Fertő-Hanság Nemzeti Park, MTM, Budapest, pp. 183-190. 5. DÁNYI, L. & KORSÓS, Z. (2003): Adatok az Észak-Vértes és a Gerecse (Komárom- Esztergom megye) százlábú (Chilopoda) faunájához. [Records to the chilopod fauna of the Northern Vertes Mts. and the Gerecse Mts.] Komárom-Esztergom Megyei Múzeumok Közleményei 9: 353-357. 6. DÁNYI, L. (2005): Zur Chilopoden-Fauna des Mecsek-Gebirges in Südwest-Ungarn. (Data to the chilopod-fauna of the Mts Mecsek in Southwest-Hungary.) Schubartiana 1: 17-27. 7. KORSÓS, Z.; DÁNYI, L.; KONTSCHÁN, J. & MURÁNYI, D. (2006): Az öves szkolopendra (Scolopendra cingulata Latr., 1829) magyarországi állományainak helyzete. (On the Hungarian populations of Scolopendra cingulata.) Természetvédelmi Közlemények 12: 155-163. 8. DÁNYI, L. (2006a): Az öves szkolopendra (Scolopendra cingulata Latreille, 1829) első előfordulási adatai a Bakony hegység területéről és újabban felfedezett élőhelyei a Vértesben. (The first records of Scolopendra cingulata Latreille, 1829 from the Bakony Mountains and its newly discovered occurrences in the Vértes Mountains (Hungary).) Folia Musei historico-naturalis Bakonyiensis 23: 27-31. 9. DÁNYI, L. (2006b): On the occurrence of Lithobius erythrocephalus C. L. Koch, 1847 and Lithobius schuleri Verhoeff, 1925 (Myriapoda: Chilopoda) in Hungary. Folia Historico-Naturalia Musei Matraensis 30: 105-113. 10. DÁNYI, L. (2006c): Faunistical research on the chilopods of Hungarian Lower Mountains. Norwegian Journal of Entomology 53: 271-279. 11. DÁNYI, L. (2006d): Contribution to the Chilopoda fauna of the Maramureş (Romania). Studia Universitatis Vasile Goldiş, Seria Ştiinţele Vieţii 17: 43-46. 12. DÁNYI, L. (2006e): Über Calciphilie bei Lithobius nodulipes LATZEL, 1880 (Chilopoda, Lithobiomorpha) sowie die Beurteilung von L. nodulipes scarabanciae LOKSA, 1947 in Ungarn. [On the calciphily of Lithobius nodulipes LATZEL, 1880 (Chilopoda, Lithobiomorpha) and the evaluation of L. nodulipes scarabanciae LOKSA, 1947 in Hungary.] Opuscula Zoologica, Budapest 35: 35-39.
13. DÁNYI, L. (2007): Geophilus oligopus (Attems, 1895) a species new to the fauna of Romania and to the whole of the Carpathian Mountains. Schubartiana 2: 39-48. 14. PURGER, J.J.; FARKAS, S. & DÁNYI, L. (2007): Colonisation of post-mining recultivated area by terrestrial isopods and centipedes in Hungary. Applied Ecology and Environmental Research, Budapest 5(1): 87-92. Abstracts: 1. KONTSCHÁN, J.; MURÁNYI, D.; DÁNYI, L. & KORSÓS, Z. (2002): A Vértes hegység védett terülteinek talajfaunája a természetvédelem tükrében. In: LENGYEL, SZ.; SZENTIRMAI, I.; BÁLDI, A.; HORVÁTH, M. & LENDVAI, Á.Z. (eds.): I. Magyar Természetvédelmi Biológiai Konferencia absztraktkötete. Sopron 2002.11.14-17. Magyar Biológiai Társaság, Budapest, p. 141. 2. KORSÓS, Z.; DÁNYI, L.; KONTSCHÁN, J. & MURÁNYI, D. (2002): Az öves szkolopendra magyarországi állományainak helyzete. In: LENGYEL, SZ.; SZENTIRMAI, I.; BÁLDI, A.; HORVÁTH, M. & LENDVAI, Á.Z. (eds.): I. Magyar Természetvédelmi Biológiai Konferencia absztraktkötete. Sopron, 2002.11.14-17. Magyar Biológiai Társaság, Budapest, p. 144. 3. DÁNYI, L. (2004): Centipedes (Chilopoda) of Hungary. In: STLOUKAL, E. & KALÚZ, S. (eds.): Fauna Carpathica Meeting 2004. Book of Abstracts. Smolenice, Slovakia. 2004.03.17-19. Faunima, Bratislava, p. 12. 4. DÁNYI, L. (2005): Faunistical research on the chilopods of Hungarian Lower Mountains. In: MEIDELL, B. (ed.): XIII. International Congress of Myriapodology. Book of Abstracts. Bergen, Norway. 2005.07.24-30. p. 10. 5. DÁNYI, L. (2005): Magyarország rinyafaunájának (Chilopoda, Geophilomorpha) mediterrán elemei. In: LENGYEL, SZ.; SÓLYMOS, P. & KLEIN, Á. (eds.): III. Magyar Természetvédelmi Biológiai Konferencia absztraktkötete. Eger, 2005.11.03-06. Magyar Biológiai Társaság, Budapest, p. 105. Oral presentation: 1. DÁNYI, L. (2006): A Dicellophilus carniolensis (C.L. Koch, 1847), avagy egy különleges százlábúcsalád (Mecistocephalidae) első adatai Magyarországról. [First records of an interesting centipede family (Dicellophilus carniolensis: Mecistocephalidae) from Hungary.] Magyar Biológiai Társaság Állattani Szakosztálya (Zoological Section of the Hungarian Biological Society), 2006.12.06. Budapest
OTHER PUBLICATIONS: 1. DÁNYI, L.; TRASER, GY.; FIERA, C. & RADWAŃSKI, J. M. (2006): Preliminary data on the Collembola fauna of the Maramureş (Romania). Studia Universitatis Vasile Goldiş, Seria Ştiinţele Vieţii 17: 47-51. 2. DÁNYI, L. & TRASER, GY. (2007): Magyarország ugróvillásai. [Springtails of Hungary.] In: FORRÓ, L. (ed.): A Kárpát-medence állatvilágának kialakulása. [The origin of the fauna of the Carpathian Basin.] Magyar Természettudományi Múzeum, Budapest, pp. 21 28. Other abstracts: 1. DÁNYI, L.; KONTSCHÁN, J.; TRASER, GY. & MURÁNYI D. (2005): Ismeretek a legnagyobb európai ugróvillás faj (Tetrodontophora bielanensis (Waga, 1842)) elterjedéséhez. In: LENGYEL, SZ.; SÓLYMOS, P. & KLEIN, Á. (eds.): III. Magyar Természetvédelmi Biológiai Konferencia absztraktkötete. Eger, 2005.11.03-06. Magyar Biológiai Társaság, Budapest, p. 106. 2. DÁNYI, L. & TRASER, GY. (2007): Springtails (Collembola) of Hungary. In: Batáry, P. & Kőrösi, Á (eds.): Book of abstracts. Fauna Pannonica 2007. Kecskemét 2005.11.29-12.01. HNHM, Budapest, p. 23.