pp 1–7 | Cite as

New insights into Romanian Chilopoda: Redescription of Clinopodes intermedius Dărăbanţu and Matic, 1969 (Geophilomorpha: Geophilidae)

  • George PopoviciEmail author
  • Ana Alexandra Stratan
Original Article


The discovery of new Clinopodes intermedius specimens prompted the investigation regarding the validity of this species. Clinopodes intermedius is morphologically re-described with updated illustrations based on the newly-collected specimens, including the first description of a male specimen and the first molecular data for this species; a complete overview of important taxonomic characters is also given, which includes hitherto unknown details about the mouthparts and last leg-bearing segment. A table with comparative characters of Clinopodes species from Romania is also provided. The species’ distribution in Romania and ecological, as well as phenological data are provided, along with a map of known localities. A molecular description of two specimens (male and female) of C. intermedius has been obtained using a widely employed DNA barcode. The genetic distance between the obtained sequences for C. intermedius was calculated in order to prove their conspecificity.


Centipede Chilopoda DNA barcoding Taxonomy 



We are greatly indebted to Lucio Bonato (Università degli Studi di Padova, Italy) and to Etienne Iorio (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Marseille, France) for offering information on Clinopodes intermedius and opinions on the identity of the examined specimens. Many thanks to Oana Paula Popa (MNINGA: Muzeul Naţional de Istorie Naturală “Grigore Antipa”, Romania), who kindly helped with the DNA barcoding of the specimens and reviewed the original manuscript and to Ana-Maria Krapal (MNINGA, Romania) who also provided us with extensive feedback and advice. Our gratitude also goes to Adriana Stoica (MNINGA, Romania) and Felix Vîjiac for inking the pencil drawings and for the image setup, respectively, and to Andrei Ştefan (MNINGA, Romania) for the distribution map. Many thanks to Stylianos M. Simaiakis (Natural History Museum, Crete, Grece) for reviewing and providing us with feedback on the first draft of the manuscript. Special thanks to Dr. Dragan Antic and the other two anonymous reviewers.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors of this article certify that they have no affiliations with or involvements in any organization or entity with any financial, or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.


  1. Adis J, Minelli A, de MJW, Pereira LA, Barbieri F, Rodrigues JMG (1996) On abundance and phenology of Geophilomorpha (Chilopoda) from central Amazonian upland forests. Ecotropica 2:165–175Google Scholar
  2. Bonato L, Iorio E, Minelli A (2011) The centipede genus Clinopodes C. L. Koch, 1847 (Chilopoda, Geophilomorpha, Geophilidae): reassessment of species diversity and distribution, with a new species from the maritime Alps (France). Zoosystema 33:175–205. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dabert J, Ehrnsberger R, Dabert M (2008) Glaucalges tytonis sp. n. (Analgoidea, Xolalgidae) from the barn owl Tyto alba (Strigiformes, Tytonidae): compiling morphology with DNA barcode data for taxon descriptions in mites (Acari). Zootaxa 1719:41–52. Google Scholar
  4. Danyi L (2008) Review and contribution to the Chilopoda fauna of Maramures, Romania. Studia Univ VG 18:185–197Google Scholar
  5. Dărăbanţu C, Matic Z (1969) Genus Clinopodes C. Koch 1847 (Geophilidae - Geophilomorpha) in Fauna României. Studia UBB Biologia 1:101–107 [in Romanian]Google Scholar
  6. Folmer OM, Black M (1994) DNA primers for amplification of mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I from diverse metazoan invertebrates. Mol Phylogenet Evol 2:304–313Google Scholar
  7. Hebert PDN, Cywinska A, Ball SL, deWaard JR (2003a) Biological identifications through DNA barcodes. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 270:313–321. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hebert PDN, Ratnasingham S, deWaard JR (2003b) Barcoding animal life: cytochrome c oxidase subunit 1 divergences among closely related species. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 270(Suppl 1):S96–S99. Google Scholar
  9. Ion CM (2015) A catalogue of the Geophilomorpha species (Myriapoda: Chilopoda) of Romania. Trav Mus Natl Hist Nat Grigore Antipa 58:17–32. Google Scholar
  10. Kaltsas D, Simaiakis SM (2012) Seasonal patterns of activity of S. cretica and S. cingulata (Chilopoda: Scolopendromorpha) in East Mediterranean maquis ecosystems. Int J Myriap 7:1–14. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kimura M (1980) A simple method for estimating evolutionary rate of base substitutions through comparative studies of nucleotide sequences. J Mol Evol 16:111–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kumar S, Stecher G, Tamura K (2016) MEGA7: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 7.0 for bigger datasets. Mol Biol Evol 33:1870–1874. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Librado P, Rozas J (2009) DnaSP v5 – a software for a comprehensive analysis of DNA polymorphism data. Bioinformatics 25:1451–1452. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Matic Z (1972) Fauna Republicii Socialiste România, Clasa Chilopoda. Subclasa Epimorpha. Ed Acad RSR 6:86–88 [in Romanian]Google Scholar
  15. Pereira LA (2000) The preparation of centipedes for microscopical examination with particular reference to the Geophilomorpha. Bull Br Myriapod Gp 16:22–25Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Zoology, Slovak Academy of Sciences 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.“Grigore Antipa” National Museum of Natural HistoryBucharestRomania
  2. 2.British School of BucharestVoluntariRomania
  3. 3.“Saint Sava” National CollegeBucharestRomania

Personalised recommendations