Open-access, online, rapid taxonomy
ISSN: 2653-4649 (Online)
Australian Journal of
Taxonomy
Thank you for reviewing this taxon in Australian Journal of Taxonomy.
As you know, peer review is a critical step in ensuring high quality and scientific rigour in taxonomy. Reviews for Australian Journal of Taxonomy are performed fully online.
Reviews for Australian Journal of Taxonomy are performed fully online. If you wish to add a review comment for a section, click the Comment button at the bottom of the section. Feel free to copy and paste text from the manuscript into your comment, to highlight suggested edits.
Once complete, check the My review is now ready to submit box, then click the Submit button.
If this is the first time you've reviewed a paper for Australian Journal of Taxonomy, or if your last review was done some time ago, please click the More button to read some brief instructions.
Reviewing for Australian Journal of Taxonomy may be slightly different from reviewing for other more conventional journals. Australian Journal of Taxonomy specialises in papers describing new taxa in as straightforward a manner as possible. It forms part of a strategy to accelerate the documentation of Australia's species. While as a reviewer you are asked to draw attention to inaccuracies, ambiguities and errors in this paper, please ensure that your review focuses on ensuring adequacy of content rather than demanding unreasonable levels of detail.
Australian Journal of Taxonomy is also a lightly styled journal. This means there is no highly prescriptive journal style to which authors must conform. Rather, authors are expected to be consistent within a paper, reasonable, and moderately conventional in their styling and formatting. Within these bounds, Australian Journal of Taxonomy allows considerable latitude. Please look for and point out to the author anything that creates ambiguity or reduces clarity, but do not ask for formatting changes that achieve nothing more than consistency for its own sake.
Note that as a reviewer of this paper you will be acknowledged directly in the published paper, unless you choose to remain anonymous.
Thanks again for agreeing to review. We appreciate your time and expertise.
THIS IS A REVIEW COPY OF AN UNPUBLISHED MANUSCRIPT. PLEASE DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OR SHARE
Please Wait...
Taxon name
Lissodesmus meunna
Figure citations
Registration Number
urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:CA38D201-56E7-4D8E-B1E3-301D4A1F674E
Type statement
Holotype and paratypes are listed in "Specimens examined".
Synonymy
Diagnosis
Distinguished from co-occurring L. latus and L. perporosus by its smaller size and live colour difference (Fig. 1): paranota, prozonites and metazonites light brown, vs light brown paranota and dark red or reddish purple colouring laterally on prozonites in L. latus, and brown paranota and metazonites with reddish brown colouring laterally on prozonites in L. perporosus. Distinguished from all other Lissodesmus species by a unique combination of gonopod telopodite characters: base with rounded shoulder on posterior surface at level of solenomere origin, femoral process unbranched, prefemoral process slightly tapering to posteriorly bent, apically emarginate tip, and two small unci on posterior surface at half the distance between solenomere origin and telopodite tip.
Description
The characters of Lissodesmus species have been repeatedly described (Carl 1902; Chamberlin 1920; Jeekel 1983, 1984; Johns 1964; Mesibov 2006, 2008, 2018, 2019) but for the sake of completeness I here provide a description of adult male L. meunna sp. n. No female has yet been found.
H+20 body plan. Length ca 14 mm, midbody metazonite width ca 1.7 mm, midbody ring diameter ca 1.4 mm. Uniformly light brown in colour but paler ventrally(Fig. 1B, top).
Head with vertex sparsely setose, frons and clypeus setose, clypeus more so. Vertigial sulcus extending to just above line joining antennal sockets. Sockets separated by ca 2.5x socket diameter. Antenna slender, slightly clavate, reaching tergite 2 when manipulated dorsally. Antennomere lengths 6>(2,3)>>(4,5); antennomere 6 widest; antennomeres 7+8 ca 1/3 length of 6.
Collum with anterior margin strongly convex with transverse row of long setae, posterior margin almost straight, corners rounded. Overall widths (head, collum, tergite 5)>(tergite 4)>(tergites 2,3); widths 6-16 subequal, 17-19 diminishing. Tergite 2 lateral margin at same level as collum corner, slightly lower than tergite 3 margin. Paranotum with anterior margin strongly convex, lateral margin slightly convex with 3-4 notches, posterior margin more or less straight; posterior corner not turned up; corner slightly projecting as tooth, more prominently on posterior rings; long seta at each posterior corner directed posterodorsally; midbody paranota at ca 1/2 ring height. Metazonites bare; no obvious sculpturing of prozonite or metazonite. Limbus at lower magnification a simple lamina. Normal pore formula; ozopore prominent, round, not elevated, close to lateral paranotal margin at ca 3/4 length of paranotum.
Preanal ring setose; epiproct with truncate tip extending a little past anal valves; spinnerets in square array; hypoproct trapezoidal.
Sternites a little wider than long; impressions shallow. Midbody legs ca 1.5x ring diameter; podomere lengths tarsus>femur>prefemur>>(postfemur, tibiotarsus); tarsus straight; claw ca 1/4x tarsus length. Anterior legs with prefemur swollen dorsally, femur less so. Brush setae not forked, each seta tapering to point; sphaerotrichome with base globose, seta long, tapering to point and directed distoventrally; sphaerotrichomes on tarsus, tibia, a few on postfemur and femur; brush setae and sphaerotrichomes densest on anterior legs, but present on midbody legs. Spiracles round, slightly protruding, rims thickened; spiracles on diplosegments above and slightly anterior to leg bases.
Gonopore prominent at distomedial end of leg 2 coxa. Aperture ovoid, ca 1/2 width of ring 7 prozonite, margins slightly produced laterally and posteriorly. Telopodites reaching legpair 6 when retracted; ring 6 sternite excavate to accommodate retracted telopodites.
Gonocoxae small, subconical, slightly setose, lightly joined medially. Telopodite (Figs 2B, 2E) straight; base with sparse long setae posteriorly; setose portion of base swollen distally, forming shoulder on posterior telopodite surface at ca 1/3 telopodite height. Solenomere (s) arising on anteromedial surface, bending posteriorly over shoulder of base, directed posterodistally, tapering to point with subapical tooth on anterodistal surface. Prostatic groove running on medial surface to solenomere base and continuing to solenomere tip. Tibiotarsus (tt) flattened with near-uniform width and laterally bent tip, arising just posterior to solenomere, directed posteriorly and a little distally. Femoral process (fp) arising on anterolateral surface of telopodite at about the same level as solenomere origin, sword-like, unbranched, appressed to telopodite and directed distally. Telopodite extending as prefemoral process (pf), slightly swollen at ca 2/3 telopodite height and bearing two small unci on posterior surface just above swelling. Prefemoral process only slightly curving posteriorly near tip, the tip bent posteriorly and slightly expanded with apex rounded and emarginate; one rounded tooth near apex on posterior surface.
Specimens Examined
Holotype. Male, Australia, Tasmania, Myalla Road, -41.0600 145.4780 ±25 m, 310 m a.s.l., leg. Robert Mesibov, 2026-09-16, TMAG J8131.
Paratypes. 2 males, details as for holotype but 2026-09-09; TMAG J8128; 2 males, same details but 2026-09-12, TMAG J8129; 1 male in 95% ethanol, same details, TMAG J8130.
Notes
Distribution & habitat. Known from a single site near Meunna in northwestern Tasmania (Fig. 3). Found in leaf litter in a ca 75 sq m patch of wet sclerophyll regrowth between a road and a Pinus radiata plantation.
Etymology. For the type locality; noun in apposition.
Remarks. L. meunna sp. n. is rare and probably a narrow-range endemic. Northwestern Tasmania has been repeatedly sampled for Lissodesmus species (and other millipedes) over many years, and the area within which L. meunna sp. n. occurs has previously only yielded L. perporosus and L. latus. On two field days in the week after finding the new species, I searched for L. meunna sp. n. unsuccessfully at six native forest sites within 6 km from its type (and only) locality.
The colour differences between L. meunna sp. n. and L. latus and L. perporosus (Fig. 1) are reliable diagnostic features. The two larger species vary very little in colour over most of northwestern Tasmania, and both retain their colouring fairly well after long preservation in alcohol, although L. latus paranota often fade to white in storage.
Lissodesmus perporosus is unique in its genus for having ozopores on rings 11 and 14 and for secreting mainly the strongly smelling o-cresol (Jones et al. 2018). I could not smell a defensive secretion in live L. meunna sp. n.
At the type locality L. meunna sp. n. was found with other Dalodesmidae previously recorded in the Meunna area, namely Gasterogramma psi Jeekel, 1982, L. perporosus, Paredrodesmus taurulus Mesibov, 2003 and Tasmaniosoma compitale Mesibov, 2010.
Table content
Key content
General Review comments on this taxon
For author(s)
For editors
Please wait...
