Research Article
Print
Research Article
Where does Rhynchocyrtus Mendonça and Fernandes (Collembola, Entomobryidae) fit? A new species, mitogenome and insights into the troubled systematics of Lepidocyrtinae
expand article infoJosemária Silva de França, Bruno Cavalcante Bellini, Nerivânia Nunes Godeiro§, Nikolas Gioia Cipola
‡ Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, Brazil
§ Shanghai Natural History Museum, Shanghai, China
Open Access

Abstract

Rhynchocyrtus Mendonça and Fernandes, 2007 is a monotypic genus of Entomobryidae, endemic to Brazil. Its placement within the Lepidocyrtinae and its systematic affinities with other members of the subfamily, especially with the subgenera of Lepidocyrtus Bourlet, 1839, have never been tested before. Here, we described the morphology and mitogenome of a new species of Rhynchocyrtus from the northeastern Brazilian Atlantic Forest (Rhynchocyrtus cleideae sp. nov. holotype female deposited in CC/UFRN: Brazil, Rio Grande do Norte State, Natal municipality), depicting for the first time the dorsal trunk chaetal pattern, homology and body pseudopores distribution for the genus. The new species description provided further data which we used to update the genus diagnosis, following the current standards used for other Entomobryidae. We also evaluated the phylogenetic placement of the genus within Lepidocyrtinae, testing its affinities with different subgenera of Lepidocyrtus. Our results point to Rhynchocyrtus as an ingroup of Neotropical Setogaster Salmon, 1951 subgenus, and not related to Cinctocyrtus Yoshii and Suhardjono, 1989 as previously suspected. Setogaster is likely a paraphyletic taxon, suggesting that some features currently used to separate Lepidocyrtus subgenera do not hold phylogenetic signal, and should be reevaluated. We discuss the problematic systematics of Lepidocyrtinae and reinforce the usefulness of some alternative morphological traits to better define its subgroups, based on the current knowledge of the group.

Key words

Chaetal homology, Lepidocyrtini, new taxon, p-distance, phylogeny

1. Introduction

Lepidocyrtinae is one of the largest subfamilies of springtails, holding about 700 known species. Its largest genera are Pseudosinella Schäffer, 1897, and Lepidocyrtus Bourlet, 1839, both widely distributed across the globe and having around 360 and 260 extant species, respectively (Bellinger et al. 1996–2024).

The current systematics of Lepidocyrtinae is subject of controversy due to its remarkably complex taxonomy, absence of comprehensible morphological traits able to circumscribe some groups, with overlapping morphology assigned as diagnostic features to circumscribe more than one lineage, unclear relationships between most of its internal lineages, and traditional para- or polyphyletic genera still in use (Soto-Adames 2000, 2002; Cipola et al. 2018; Mateos et al. 2018; Winkler et al. 2020; Kováč et al. 2023). For example, Lepidocyrtus seems to represent the bauplan of the subfamily, from which species of different genera, like Pseudosinella, emerged (Soto-Adames 2000, 2002; Zhang et al. 2014, 2015, 2019; Zhang and Deharveng 2015), with lineages arising at least in the Oligocene (Kováč et al. 2023). At the same time, this latter genus portrays a polyphyletic taxon with reduction of eyes and usually of body pigmentation as well, with at least two different independent lineages which putatively achieved such morphology in response to adaptations to the underground life (Christiansen 1960, 1961, 1988; Kováč et al. 2023). Additionally, Lepidocyrtus is tentatively subdivided into nine subgenera, whose boundaries may be unclear due to overlapping morphological diagnostic characters (Cipola et al. 2018). Its internal affinities are in need for a better examination under the light of phylogenetics, using larger sampling from different zoogeographical regions (Christiansen and Bellinger 1991; Soto-Adames 2000, 2002; Zhang et al. 2014, 2015, 2019; Zhang and Deharveng 2015; Mateos et al. 2018; Winkler et al. 2020; Godeiro et al. 2021, 2023; García et al. 2024).

Rhynchocyrtus Mendonça and Fernandes, 2007 is a monotypic genus of Neotropical Lepidocyrtinae, endemic to Brazil (Bellinger et al. 1996–2024; Zeppelini et al. 2025). It was proposed mainly based on elongated mouthparts projecting anteriorly, in a beak-like mouth, a feature not seen in any other lineage of Entomobryoidea. Its sole described species, Rhynchocyrtus klausi Mendonça and Fernandes, 2007, was sampled from an Atlantic Forest area in the state of Rio de Janeiro. However, the authors noted that another morphotype from Pernambuco State, also in Atlantic Forest in Brazil, could represent a second species of the genus (Mendonça and Fernandes 2007).

Rhynchocyrtus was placed within Lepidocyrtinae due to its overall resemblance to Lepidocyrtus (Mendonça and Fernandes 2007), including the shape of body scales, reduced dorsal macrochaetotaxy, abdominal segments II–IV with 2, 3, and 2 bothriotricha, respectively, and crenulate dens, ending in a bidentate mucro with a basal spine (Soto-Adames et al. 2008; Zhang et al. 2019). Among all subgenera of Lepidocyrtus, Mendonça and Fernandes (2007) noted similarities of Rhynchocyrtus with Cinctocyrtus Yoshii and Suhardjono, 1989, especially due to the shared rounded proximal dental tubercle and absence of scales on antennae, legs and collophore. It is worth noting that such characteristics are also shared with other subgenera of Lepidocyrtus (Cipola et al. 2018). Even so, to date, the placement of Rhynchocyrtus within the Lepidocyrtinae and its presumed affinity with Cinctocyrtus have never been tested before in a phylogenetic framework.

Here, a new species, Rhynchocyrtus cleideae sp. nov., from the northeastern Brazilian Atlantic Forest is described and illustrated, depicting for the first time the dorsal trunk chaetotaxy pattern and homology for the genus Rhynchocyrtus, as well as other aspects like the distribution pattern of body pseudopores. Based on our description, we updated the genus diagnosis to put it on pair with the current systematics of the subfamilies of Entomobryidae established by Zhang and Deharveng (2015), Zhang et al. (2015, 2019), and Godeiro et al. (2023). We also described the new species’ mitogenome, providing details on its gene order. More importantly, we test, for the first time, the placement of Rhynchocyrtus within Lepidocyrtinae using phylogenetic analyses, also calculating the genetic distance of the new species (and thus the genus) to other sampled Lepidocyrtinae.

2. Material and Methods

2.1. Morphological study

Individuals of the new species preserved in ethanol (70 and 100%) were cleared with Nesbitt’s solution and then mounted on glass slides in Hoyer’s medium following the procedures described by Jordana et al. (1997). Specimens in ethanol gel were photographed using a stereomicroscope (M165C) attached to a DFC420 digital camera with a dome, as presented in Kawada and Buffington (2016). The morphological study and raw drawings were made using a Leica DM750 phase-contrast microscope with a drawing tube attached. The mouthparts photograph was taken with a Leica MC170 HD camera attached to this microscope, stacked using LAS v. 4.12 software. Final drawings were vectorized and organized into plates using CorelDraw 2022 software.

The terminology used in the description follows mainly: prelabral and clypeal chaetotaxy after Yoshii and Suhardjono (1992); labral chaetotaxy after Cipola et al. (2014); labial papillae, maxillary palp and basolateral and basomedian labial fields after Fjellberg (1999), using the Gisin’s system (1964) for naming the chaetae rows; postlabial chaetotaxy after Chen and Christiansen (1993); subcoxae outer chaetotaxy after Yosii (1959); trochanteral organ lines of spines after Christiansen (1958a) and South (1961); unguiculus lamellae after Hüther (1986); manubrium ventral chaetotaxy after Yoshii (1982); and male’s genital plate after Christiansen (1958b). The head dorsal chaetotaxy follows Mari-Mutt (1979) and body after Szeptycki (1979), both adapted from Soto-Adames (2010), Cipola et al. (2018), Cipola and Viana (2023) and Zhang et al. (2019); and specialized chaetae (S-chaetae) after Zhang and Deharveng (2015). The macrochaetotaxy simplified formula for Lepidocyrtinae follows Gisin (1964) and Cipola and Viana (2023), modified to depict the inner + outer (lateral) macrochaetae of mesothorax to the fourth abdominal segment. The distribution pattern of pseudopores follows Mateos et al. (2021).

The abbreviations used in the description are: Abd―abdominal segment(s), Ant―antennal segment(s), mac―macrochaeta(e), mes―mesochaeta(e), mic―microchaeta(e), ms―specialized microchaeta(e), psp―pseudopore(s), sens―specialised ordinary chaeta(e), Th―thoracic segment(s); MTO––metatrochanteral organ; BP4―“basal” plate of fourth abdominal segment; for clypeal chaetotaxy: f―frontal, pf―prefrontal, l―lateral; for mouthparts: a.a.―apical appendage of labial papillae, b.c.―basal chaeta of maxillary palp, l.p.―lateral process of papilla E, lpc―labial proximal chaetae, s.b.―appendages of sublobal plate, t.a.―terminal appendage of the maxillary palp; for unguis: b.t.―paired basal teeth, m.t.―unpaired median tooth, a.t.―unpaired apical tooth; for unguiculus: ai―antero-internal lamella, ae―antero-external lamella, pi―postero-internal lamella, pe―postero-external lamella.

Symbols used to depict the chaetotaxy are presented in Fig. 1. Chaetae labels and other important taxonomic abbreviations are marked in bold in the text. Chaetae of uncertain homology are followed by a question mark (?). Chaetotaxy in figures and text is given by one side of the body only (left side in the figures), except for the clypeal and prelabral regions.

The studied material is deposited at the Collembola Collection of the Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil (CC/UFRN), and the Invertebrate Collection of the National Institute of Amazonian Research, Manaus, Brazil (INPA).

Figure 1. 

Symbols used in the chaetotaxy description of Rhynchocyrtus cleideae sp. nov.

2.2. Molecular and phylogenetic analyses

Specimens selected for molecular experiments were stored in absolute ethanol at –20 °C from the collection date until the DNA extraction. DNA was extracted from a single individual using the TIANamp MicroDNA extraction kit (Tiangen Co., Ltd, China). Libraries were constructed using KAPA Hyper Prep Kit (Roche). Shanghai Yao’en Biotechnology Co., Ltd, China, performed all laboratory procedures, including DNA extraction, amplification and library construction, following custom procedures. Whole-genome sequencing was performed by an Illumina NovaSeq platform, producing paired-end reads with 150 bp length. Approximately 57,333,204 reads or 8 Gb of data were generated.

Previous to the mitogenome assembly, the raw sequencing data was analyzed to remove sequencing adapters, reads with low quality and contaminants, and to correct potential errors. To perform the previous steps, we used BBTools (sourceforge.net/projects/bbmap), with the “clumpify.sh” and “bbduk.sh” pipelines. A total of 5Gb of cleaned paired-end data was then inputted into MitoZ v. 3.6 (Meng et al. 2019). The listed integrated tools were called to perform the following steps: MEGAHIT v. 1.2.9 (Li et al. 2015) for assembly; Tiara v. 1.0.1 (Karlicki et al. 2022) and HMMER v. 3.4 (Wheeler and Eddy 2013) for homology searches and sequence alignment. For annotation, we used BLAST+ (Gertz et al. 2006), GeneWise (Birney et al. 2004), Infernal v.1.1.5 (Nawrocki and Eddy 2013), and MiTFi v. 0.1 (Jühling et al. 2012). Visualization of the results of annotation and coverage graphic was done using Circos v. 0.69 (Krzywinski et al. 2009), BWA v. 0.7.17 (Li and Durbin 2009), and SAMtools v. 1.18 (Li et al. 2009). The mitogenome sequence and raw sequencing data will be available in NCBI (at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) under the accession numbers PV872867 and SRR34434446, respectively, associated to bioproject number: PRJNA1125622.

To determine the phylogenetic position of the new species of Rhynchocyrtus within Lepidocyrtinae, we incorporated data from eight additional species of the subfamily from Lepidocyrtus and Pseudosinella, spanning representatives of five subgenera of the first genus. Other four species of Seirinae, broadly considered as the sister-group of Lepidocyrtinae, and four species of Entomobryinae (sister group of the cluster Seirinae + Lepidocyrtinae) served as outgroup taxa (Zhang et al. 2014; Zhang and Deharveng 2015; Zhang et al. 2019; Godeiro et al. 2023; Bellini et al. 2023). Complete mitogenomes were downloaded from NCBI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov), accession numbers are listed on Table 1. Previous to the phylogenetic matrix generation, all 13 protein-coding genes (PCGs) from each species were organized into separate directories. Translations from nucleotide sequences to amino acids were carried out using TransDecoder v. 5.5.0 (http://transdecoder.github.io). Multiple sequence alignments were performed with MAFFT v. 7.470 (Katoh and Standley 2013) employing the “L-INS-i” algorithm, and alignment trimming was conducted using TrimAl v.1.4.1 (Capella-Gutiérrez et al. 2009) with the “-gappyout” setting. The final aligned sequences were concatenated into a single matrix of 3,358 amino acid sites (including 1,664 parsimony-informative sites) using FASconCAT-G v. 1.04 (Kück and Longo 2014). Phylogenetic inference via maximum likelihood (ML) as optimality criterion was performed with IQ-TREE v.2 (Minh et al. 2020) on a partitioned dataset. ModelFinder (Kalyaanamoorthy et al. 2017) was used to identify the most suitable substitution model for each gene partition, as detailed in Table S1. ML analyses included 1,000 replicates each of SH-aLRT (Guindon et al. 2010) and UFBoot2 (Hoang et al. 2018) to assess branch support. Bayesian inference (BI) was conducted with PhyloBayes-MPI v.1.8 (Lartillot et al. 2013) using the CAT + GTR site-heterogeneous mixture model. Two independent Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) runs were carried out and stopped once convergence was achieved (maxdiff < 0.1). The first 10% of sampled trees was discarded as burn-in, and the consensus tree was built from the remaining data. Final tree visualizations were generated using FigTree v. 1.4.2 (https://tree.bio.ed.ac.uk/software/figtree).

Table 1.

Taxonomical information, origin, GenBank accession numbers, and references for all analyzed species. The new species data is marked in bold.

Species Subfamily Country GenBank
accession number
Reference
1 Coecobrya sp. Entomobryinae China OK037064.1 Godeiro et al. 2021
2 Entomobrya sp. Entomobryinae Brazil MF716608.1 Godeiro et al. 2020
3 Homidia koreana Lee & Lee, 1981 Entomobryinae South Korea MZ934725.1 Lee et al. 2022
4 Lepidocyrtinus diamantinae (Godeiro & Bellini, 2015) Seirinae Brazil MF716594.1 Godeiro et al. 2020
5 Lepidocyrtinus paraibensis (Bellini & Zeppelini, 2009) Seirinae Brazil MF716600.1 Godeiro et al. 2020
6 Lepidocyrtoides caeruleomaculatus Cipola & Bellini, 2017 Entomobryinae Brazil MF716618.1 Godeiro et al. 2020
7 Lepidocyrtus (Acrocyrtus) sp. Lepidocyrtinae Thailand MT914190.1 Godeiro et al. 2021
8 Lepidocyrtus (Cinctocrtus) cinctus Schäffer, 1898 Lepidocyrtinae Indonesia OP094720.1 NP
9 Lepidocyrtus (Lanocyrtus) fimetarius Gisin, 1964 Lepidocyrtinae China NC047189.1 Sun et al. 2020
10 Lepidocyrtus (Lepidocyrtus) curvicollis Bourlet, 1839 Lepidocyrtinae UK OZ194357.1 NP
11 Lepidocyrtus (Setogaster) nigrosetosus Folsom, 1927 Lepidocyrtinae Brazil MW033192.1 Godeiro et al. 2021
12 Lepidocyrtus (Setogaster) sotoi Bellini & Godeiro, 2015 Lepidocyrtinae Brazil MT928545.1 Godeiro et al. 2021
13 Lepidocyrtus (Setogaster) sp. Lepidocyrtinae Brazil MF716621.1 Godeiro et al. 2020
14 Pseudosinella tumula Wang, Chen & Christiansen, 2002 Lepidocyrtinae China MT611221.1 Godeiro et al. 2021
15 Rhynchocyrtus cleideae sp. nov. Lepidocyrtinae Brazil PV872867.1 This study
16 Seira ritae Bellini & Zeppelini, 2011 Seirinae Brazil MF716616.1 Godeiro et al. 2020
17 Seira tinguira Cipola & Bellini, 2014 Seirinae Brazil MF716620.1 Godeiro et al. 2020
Legends: (NP) not published.

To calculate the genetic distances between the Lepidocyrtinae species, we first used the complete COI gene (1,539 bp), as it is a more informative marker. Even so, as a complementary approach, we also used the partial COI gene (658 bp), since this barcode marker has been widely applied in previous studies of Collembola, allowing our results to be used for cross-comparison with previous and future works. To construct the matrices, the nucleotide sequences of the complete and parcial COI of the nine species of Lepidocyrtinae listed in Table 1 were aligned in AliView v.1.28 (Larsson 2014) using MUSCLE v.3.8.31 (Edgar 2004), and the gaps were manually trimmed. The final alignment was used as input to calculate the pairwise distances in MEGA v.X (Kumar et al. 2018; Stecher et al. 2020) in both cases. Analyses were conducted using the Kimura 2-parameter model (Kimura 1980) and p-distance. Codon positions included were 1st+2nd+3rd+Noncoding. All ambiguous positions were removed for each sequence pair (pairwise deletion option). A non-parametric bootstrap of 1000 replications (Felsenstein 1985) was used as the variance estimation method.

3. Results

3.1. New species description

Family Entomobryidae Tömösvary, 1882

Subfamily Lepidocyrtinae Wahlgren 1906 sensu Zhang and Deharveng, 2015

Rhynchocyrtus Mendonça and Fernandes, 2007

Type species.

Rhynchocyrtus klausi Mendonça and Fernandes, 2007 by original designation.

Diagnosis.

Pigmented springtails. Scales finely ciliate by short interrupted cilia, rounded, oval, slightly truncate or irregular, mostly elongated, present on dorsal and ventral head, dorsal trunk, ventral manubrium and dens. Antennae and collophore scaleless. Antennae shorter than body length (Fig. 2), Ant IV without apical bulb. Eyes 8 + 8 (Fig. 3E). Four smooth prelabral chaetae (Fig. 3D). Mouth cone, mandibles and maxillae elongated, projecting anteriorly as a beak-like mouth (Figs 2, 5), maxillae with lobed lamellae (Fig. 4A). Mesonotum (Th II) slightly projected over head anteriorly (Fig. 2). Dorsal head and trunk macrochaetotaxy reduced, tergal sensilla and microsensilla formulae of Th II–Abd V typical of Lepidocyrtinae, as 1,1|0,1,1,+,3 and 1,0|1,0,1,0,0, respectively, bothriotricha formula of Abd II–IV as 2,3,2 (Figs 6, 7). Trochanteral organ underdeveloped (Fig. 9D). Dens dorso-proximal region with a small apically rounded tubercle (Fig. 11B), without spines or other clearly modified chaetae. Mucro short and bidentate, with a basal spine lacking the spinelet (adapted and updated from Mendonça and Fernandes, 2007).

Figure 2. 

Rhynchocyrtus cleideae sp. nov. habitus of adult paratypes (CC/UFRN) fixed in ethanol; A dorsal view; B lateral view. Scale bars: 0.2 mm.

Figure 3. 

Rhynchocyrtus cleideae sp. nov. left antennae and head; A Ant III (ventral view); B Ant II (dorsal view); C Ant I (dorsal view); D clypeal, prelabral and labral chaetotaxy; E dorsal head chaetotaxy (left side).

Figure 4. 

Rhynchocyrtus cleideae sp. nov. ventral head; A right maxilla capitulum (lateral view); B right maxillary palp and sublobal plate; C left labial papilla E; D proximal labial chaetae, basomedian and basolateral labial fields and postlabial chaetotaxy postlabial (right side), arrows indicate chaetae ciliate or smooth.

Remarks.

Our new genus diagnosis adds, for the first time, data on tergal sensilla and microsensilla distribution. We also highlight some data, like the absence of spines on dens, which are currently used to determine Lepidocyrtus subgenera (Cipola et al. 2018). As first noted by Mendonça and Fernandes (2007), Rhynchocyrtus is remarkably similar to the latter genus in many aspects, except for the strongly modified mouthparts. Rhynchocyrtus overall chaetotaxy, including scales morphology and distribution, as well as its reduction of dorsal macrochaetae and tergal sensilla and microsensilla formulae, clearly supports its position among other Lepidocyrtinae (Szeptycki 1979; Zhang and Deharveng 2015; Cipola et al. 2018; Zhang et al. 2019). Such observation is endorsed by our phylogenetic analyses (see the next topics).

It is likely that many aspects of the body psp distribution pattern of R. klausi matches the one described for the new species, being generic diagnostic features. Even so, in the absence of such data for the first species, the body psp pattern is not listed in our updated genus diagnosis.

Rhynchocyrtus cleideae sp. nov. França, Bellini, Godeiro and Cipola

Figures 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, Table 2

Diagnosis.

Body with diffuse blue pigmentation (head, Th II to Abd III, collophore, legs, and furcula), Ant I–IV, head anteriorly, Th II and Abd III laterally and Abd V dark blue pigmented, Abd IV proximal half with a transversal band (Fig. 2). Dorsal head with 7–9 mac on An series and 2 mac on A series (Fig. 3E), clypeal formula with 2l, 4ft and 3pf chaetae and two chaeta extra (Fig. 3D), labial papilla E l.p. finger-shaped and surpassing the apex of papilla basis (Fig. 4C), postlabial chaetotaxy with 2 short spines, cephalic groove with 5–6 chaetae, 2–3 smooth and 3–4 ciliate (Fig. 4D). Th II to Abd IV macrochaetotaxy formula with 0,0|0,1+1,0+2, 2+12–13 mac (Figs 6, 7), Abd IV with 6 median sens and 7 posterior mes (Fig. 7B). Trochanteral organ with about 10–14 spine-like chaetae (Fig. 9D). Unguis m.t. paired and larger than b.t., a.t. present (Fig. 9E). Collophore anteriorly with 16 ciliate chaetae (Fig. 10A), posteriorly with 5 ciliate and 1 distal smooth chaeta per side (Fig. 10B), lateral flap with 2 smooth and 3–5 ciliate chaetae (Fig. 10C). Manubrial plate with 4–5 ciliate chaetae, dens with basal tubercle apically rounded, mucronal spinelet absent (Fig. 11C).

Figure 5. 

Rhynchocyrtus cleideae sp. nov., photograph of the oral cone and mandibles (dorsal view), arrows point to the mandible apexes.

Figure 6. 

Rhynchocyrtus cleideae sp. nov. dorsal chaetotaxy (left side): A Th II; B Th III; C Abd I; D Abd II.

Figure 7. 

Rhynchocyrtus cleideae sp. nov. dorsal chaetotaxy (left side): A Abd III; B Abd IV; C Abd V.

Table 2.

Comparison between Rhynchocyrtus species.

Features / species R. klausi 1 R. cleideae sp. nov.
Th II–Abd III lateral dark pigment + Only Th II
Abd III lateral dark spot +
Abd IV dark spot lateral transversal
Scales on coxa III +
Head A series mac 5 3
Labral papillae* +
Sublobal plate appendages* 3
Maxilla teeth 2 1
Maxilla lamellae number 3 2
Maxillae posterior lamellae shape oval rounded
Postlabial smooth chaetae +
Abd II m3 mac +
Abd III lateral mac 3 2
Abd IV fan-shaped mic over T2 3 4
Abd IV lateral mac 15 12–13
Unguis m.t.* 1 2
Unguis a.t. +
Collophore anterior chaetae 14–15 16
Collophore lateral flap 7–9 5–7
Manubrial plate chaetae* 7–8 4–5
Distribution in Brazil Rio de Janeiro State northeastern Brazil
Legends: (+) present; (–) absent; (*) features that need to be better investigated in R. klausi; (1) based on Mendonça and Fernandes (2007).

Description.

Total length (head + trunk) 1.15–1.27 mm (n = 5), holotype 1.27 mm. Habitus typical of Rhynchocyrtus. Body with diffuse blue pigmentation, Ant I–IV, head anteriorly, Th II and Abd III laterally and Abd V dark blue pigmented, Abd IV proximal and distal halves with a transversal band each, Th II to Abd II posteriorly each with a thin transverse band, eyespots black (Fig. 2). Brownish weakly ciliate scales, apically rounded, truncate or rarely irregular, oval, elongated or rarely pyriform, present on all head, dorsal thorax and abdomen, coxae III and manubrium and dens ventrally (Fig. 2). — Head: Ratio antennae: trunk = 1: 2.79–4.81 (n = 4), holotype 1: 3.5; antennal ratio as I: II: III: IV = 1: 1.18–1.64: 1.37–2:1.75–2.45 (n = 5) holotype 1: 1.5: 1.6: 2. Ant IV not annulated, without apical bulb, with sens of different sizes and ciliate chaetae. Ant III sense organ with 2 finger-shape sens, 3 blunt guard sensilla plus another posterior sensillum next to it (Fig. 3A). Ant II dorsally with 4 distal and 2 proximal sens (Fig. 3B). Ant I dorsally with 3 proximal sens-like smooth chaetae (Ant I organ sensu Hüther 1986) (Fig. 3C). Eyes 8 per side, eye B larger than others, G and H smaller, interocular chaetae (p) as mac, others as mic (q, s, r, t), interocular scales absent (Fig. 3E). Head dorsal chaetotaxy with 7–9 ‘An’ (An1a3), 5 ‘A’ (A05), 5 ‘M’ (M14), 6 ‘S’ (S0, S26), 3 ‘Ps’ (Ps23, Ps5), 3–4 ‘Pa’ (Pa2, Pa5–7, Pa2 present or absent, Pa6 as bothriotrichum), 2 ‘Pm’ (Pm12), 6 ‘Pp’ (Pp16) and 3 ‘Pe’ (Pe3, Pe5Pe6) chaetae (Fig. 3E). Clypeal formula with 2 (l12, plus 2 unnamed), 4 (ft) and 3 (pf02) ciliate chaetae, l1 larger than others and acuminate, others subequal (Fig. 3D). Four prelabral chaetae (pl12) smooth and subequal to each other (Fig. 3D). Labral formula with 5 (p02), 5 (m02), 4 (a12) chaetae, a1–2 thicker than others, p0–2 larger, others subequal (Fig. 3D). Mouth cone and mouthparts projected into an elongated conical structure, typical of the genus (Figs 2B, 3D, 4D, 5). Mandible strongly elongated, right side with 5 and left with 4 incisor teeth (Fig. 5). Maxilla with a sickle-shaped ungulum and two smooth lobed lamellae (Fig. 4A). Maxillary palp with a.a and b.c. smooth and subequal, sublobal plate with tree smooth appendages (Fig. 4B). Labial papilla E l.p. finger-shaped, surpassing the apex of papilla basis (Fig. 4C). Labium with 5 proximal chaetae, the baso-internal one larger and thicker than others, others subequal (Fig. 4D). Basolateral and basomedian labial fields with chaetae a15, m1, e and l12 smooth, r reduced to a spine-like mic (Fig. 4D). Ventral chaetotaxy with about 19–20 chaetae (7–10 smooth, 9–13 ciliate) and 2 lateral short spine-like mic, postlabial chaetotaxy with 4 (G14), 1 (X) and 4 (H14) chaetae, respectively, cephalic groove with 5–6 chaetae, 2–3 smooth and 3–4 ciliate (Fig. 4D). — Thorax and abdomen: Th II slightly projected over the head anteriorly (Fig. 2). Tergal sensilla and microsensilla formulae of Th. II–Abd. V as 1,1|0,1,1,+,3 and 1,0|1,0,1,0,0, respectively (Figs 6, 7). Abd II–IV bothriotrichal formula as 2 (a5, m2), 3 (a5, m2, m5), 2 (T2, T4) (Figs 6D, 7B). Body psp pattern (Fig. 8): dorsally: Ant I outer side (1), Ant I inner side (2), Th II–Abd IV dorsally (1–1 each), coxae I–III (2, 2–3, 2), manubrium basis (1), manubrial plate (0–2), and proximal dens (1); laterally: Th III–Abd III (0), BP4 (4–7); ventrally: Ant III (1), Ant II (1), Ant I (0), Th I–III (1), collophore anteriorly (1) and posteriorly (1), between collophore and tenaculum (1), tenaculum posteriorly (1 unpaired), Abd IV (0) and anterior to genital plate (?). Thoracic chaetotaxy (Fig. 6A, B). Th II a, m and p series with 9, 6 and 7 mic (plus 1 chaetae of unknown homology), respectively. Th III a, m and p series with 6, 5 and 6 chaetae, respectively, and 1 lateral mac. Ratio Th II: III = 3.11–2.34: 1 (n=4), holotype 2.77: 1. Abdominal chaetotaxy (Figs 6C, D, 7A–C). Abd I a, m and p series with 5, 5 and 2 mic, respectively. Abd II with a, m and p series with 5, 6 and 4 chaetae, respectively, m3 and m5 as mac, a5 and m2 as bothriotricha, with 2–3 and 2 surrounding fan-shaped chaetae, respectively. Abd III a, m and p series with 6, 8 and 4 chaetae, respectively, plus 2 lateral chaetae of unknown homology, pm6 and p6 as mac, m2 bothriotrichum with 3 surrounding fan-shaped chaetae, and bothriotricha a5 and m2 with 6–7 surrounding fan-shaped chaetae between them. Abd IV series ‘A’–‘r’ with 6 (A), 5 (B), 4–5 (C), 7 (T), 1 (Te), 5 (D), 2 (De), 6 (E), 1 (Ee), 5 (F), 3 (Fe) and 3 (r) chaetae, respectively, plus Si and Sm as mic, 2 inner (B56) and 12–13 lateral as mac (T67, D3, De3, E24, E4p2, F13, Fe4), at least 7 sens (as and ps type I, others type II) and 7 posterior mes. Abd V a, m and p series with 2, 2 and 4 mac, respectively. Ratio Abd III: IV = 1: 2.05–2.9 (n = 5), holotype 1: 1.90. — Legs: Subcoxa I with one row of 4–6 chaetae, subcoxa II with 7–8 chaetae on row a and 3 anterior chaetae, p row with 5 chaetae, subcoxa III with one row 6–8 chaetae (Fig. 9A–C). Trochanteral organ with 10–14 spine-like chaetae, 2–4 anterior, 3–6 posterior, 1 apical and 3 in the distal arm (Fig. 9D). Tibiotarsus III internally devoid of mac. Tenent hair apically capitate and 0.77 smaller than the outer edge of unguis, tibiotarsal smooth chaeta of leg III 0.72 smaller than unguiculus length, pretarsus with one anterior and one posterior small chaetae (Fig. 9E). Ungues I–III outer side with 2 paired basolateral teeth and 1 unpaired basomedian tooth, inner edge with 5 teeth, b.t. and m.t. (larger) paired, a.t. unpaired and smaller than others (Fig. 9E). Unguiculi I–III with 4 lamellae (ai, ae, pi, pe), all acuminate and smooth (Fig. 9E). Ratio unguis III: unguiculus III = 1: 1.8 in holotype. — Collophore: Anterior side with about 16 ciliate chaetae of different sizes (Fig. 10A), posterior side with 5 ciliated and 1 distal smooth chaeta per side (Fig. 10B), lateral flap with 2 smooth and 3–5 ciliate chaetae (Fig. 10C). — Furcula: Manubrium ventrally with about 9 apical scales and 2 inner ciliate chaetae per side (Fig. 11A), manubrial plate with 4–5 subequal ciliate chaetae (Fig. 11B). Dens dorsally with an apically rounded dental tubercle on its basis (Fig. 11B). Mucro bidentate, apical tooth slightly smaller than basal one, mucronal spine reaching apex of basal tooth, mucronal spinelet absent (Fig. 11C). — Genital plate: FEMALE. Female genital plate with 2 anterior and 2 posterior small smooth chaetae (Fig. 11D). MALE. male genital plate unclear.

Figure 8. 

Rhynchocyrtus cleideae sp. nov. body psp distribution: A dorsal side; B ventral side, arrow points to variation in number and distribution of psp on Abd IV BP4.

Figure 9. 

Rhynchocyrtus cleideae sp. nov. legs: AC chaetotaxy of subcoxae I–III, respectively; D trochanteral organ (anterior view); E distal end of tibiotarsus and empodial complex III (anterior view).

Figure 10. 

Rhynchocyrtus cleideae sp. nov. collophore: A anterior side; B posterior side distally; C lateral flap (lateral view), arrow indicates chaeta ciliate or smooth.

Figure 11. 

Rhynchocyrtus cleideae sp. nov. furcula and female genital plate: A distal end of ventral manubrium; B distal end of manubrium and proximal dens (dorso-internal view); C distal dens and mucro (outer view); D female genital plate (ventral view).

Etymology.

The new species is named in honor of Dr. Maria Cleide de Mendonça from Museu Nacional of Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, one of the authors of the genus and a taxonomist who has made many valuable contributions to the knowledge of Brazilian Collembola. Specific name feminine, in genitive singular.

Habitat.

Rhynchocyrtus cleideae sp. nov. was found associated to the topsoil and leaf litter at least in remnants of Atlantic Forest of the states of Alagoas and Rio Grande do Norte, Northeast Brazil, Good’s biogeographic zone 27 from Neotropical region (Good 1974). According to the Köppen-Geiger system, the region has a tropical savanna climate (As), characterized by having average monthly temperatures above 18 °C throughout the year, in addition to a well-defined dry season, with the driest month having less than 60 mm of precipitation (Kottek et al. 2006).

Material examined.

10 ♀, 8 ♂ and 87 specimens in ethanol (sex undetermined). Holotype. BRAZIL • 1 ♀ on slide; Rio Grande do Norte, Natal municipality, Parque das Dunas; 05°48′44.0″S, 35°11′20.8″W; alt. 83 m; 07–09.viii.2023; M.M. Pereira et al. leg.; pitfall trap (CC/UFRN Rhynchocyrtus cleideae). Paratypes. BRAZIL• 2 ♀♀ on slides and 83 specimens in 70% ethanol; same data except 05°48′49.4″S, 35°11′09.7″W; alt. 43 m (CC/UFRN Rhynchocyrtus cleideae) • 1 specimen in 70% ethanol, same data except 05°48′52.0″S, 35°11′04.5″W, 35 m (INPA-CLL 000399) • 1 ♂ on slide; same data except 06–08.xii.2023; M.M. Pereira and B.C. Bellini leg. (INPA–CLL 000397) • 1 ♂ and 1 ♀ on slides; same data except 06–08.xii.2023; M.M. Pereira and B.C. Bellini leg. (CC/UFRN Rhynchocyrtus cleideae) • 1 ♂ on slide; same data except 05°48′52.0″S, 35°11′04.5″W; alt. 36 m; M.M. Pereira and B.C. Bellini leg. (CC/UFRN Rhynchocyrtus cleideae) • 2 ♀♀ on slides; same data except 05°48′52.0″S, 35°11′06.1″W; alt. 38 m; M.M. Pereira and B.C. Bellini leg. (INPA–CLL 000394–95) • 1 ♂ on slide; same data except 05°48′52.0″S, 35°11′06.1″W; alt. 38 m; M.M. Pereira and B.C. Bellini leg. (INPA–CLL 000396) • 1 ♂ and 3 ♀♀ on slides; same data except 05°48′50.2″S, 35°11′08.9″W; alt. 42 m (CC/UFRN Rhynchocyrtus cleideae) • 1 ♂ on slide; same data except 06–08.xii.2023; M.M. Pereira and B.C. Bellini leg. (CC/UFRN Rhynchocyrtus cleideae) • 2 ♂♂ and 1♀ on slides, 3 specimens in 70% ethanol (INPA-CLL 000398); same data except 05°48′39.7″S, 35°11′28.1″W; alt. 69 m (CC/UFRN Rhynchocyrtus cleideae). Other examined material. BRAZIL • 1 ♂ on slide and 5 specimens in 70% ethanol (INPA); Alagoas, Rio Largo municipality, forest of the Centre of Agricultural Sciences of the Federal University of Alagoas; 09°27′50″S, 35°50′02″W; alt. 36 m; xi.2010; pitfall trap; I.P.S. Santos leg.

3.2. Mitogenome organization

The length of the newly obtained mitochondrial DNA of Rhynchocyrtus cleideae sp. nov. was 14,333 bp, but approximately 500 bp corresponding to the beginning of the ND5 gene were not recovered due to an assembling error in the origin of replication (Fig. 12; Table 3). The mitogenome contained the typeset of one control region with 263 bp and 37 genes, which included 13 PCGs, 22 tRNAs, and two rRNAs. Sequence features are given in Fig. 12 and Table 3. The nucleotide composition of the complete sequence was A (38.55%; 5,525) C (20.6%; 2,953) G (10.65%; 1,526) T (30.2%; 4,329). We infer that the gene order arrangement found in the mitogenome of Rhynchocyrtus cleideae sp. nov. was different from the Pancrustacean Ancestral Gene Order (AGO), but similar to the arrangement of two other Lepidocyrtus (Setogaster) species (Fig. 13). The gene tRNA-Thr (trnT) and the region between NAD6 and tRNA-Ser2 (trnS2) were translocated to an anterior position in the sequence, located before tRNA-Phe (trnF). Additionally, the gene tRNA-Pro (trnP) was translocated to a posterior position, located before NAD1. The other six mitogenomes of Lepidocyrtinae analyzed here presented the AGO.

Figure 12. 

Circular representation of the mitogenome of Rhynchocyrtus cleideae sp. nov. The innermost circle shows the GC content; the middle circle shows the reads coverage, and the outermost circle shows the gene features, rRNA (pink), tRNA (yellow), and CDS (green). The photo in the center represents the original coloration of a specimen preserved in ethanol, as also depicted in Fig. 2.

Figure 13. 

A gene order comparison between the Pancrustacean Ancestral Gene Order and the observed gene order of three Lepidocyrtinae species (clockwise direction): Rhynchocyrtus cleideae sp. nov.; Lepidocyrtus (Setogaster) sp.; and L. (S.) sotoi. Underlined in red are the genes oriented on the minus or N-strand. Genes highlighted in gray were translocated. Genes abbreviations are detailed in Table 3.

Table 3.

Mitogenome annotation of Rhynchocyrtus cleideae sp. nov.

Start End Length(bp) Direction Type Gene name Gene product
7 1190 1184 CDS ND5 NADH dehydrogenase subunit 5
1238 1300 63 tRNA trnH(gug) tRNA-His
1299 2655 1357 CDS ND4 NADH dehydrogenase subunit 4
2645 2930 286 CDS ND4L NADH dehydrogenase subunit 4L
2948 3009 62 tRNA trnP(ugg) tRNA-Pro
3035 3947 913 CDS ND1 NADH dehydrogenase subunit 1
3974 4039 66 tRNA trnL(uag) tRNA-Leu
3988 5508 1521 rRNA l-rRNA 16S ribosomal RNA
5200 5268 69 tRNA trnV(uac) tRNA-Val
5265 6026 762 rRNA s-rRNA 12S ribosomal RNA
6027 6290 263 Control region
6291 6354 64 + tRNA trnI(gau) tRNA-Ile
6351 6419 69 tRNA trnQ(uug) tRNA-Gln
6417 6486 70 + tRNA trnM(cau) tRNA-Met
6497 7484 988 + CDS ND2 NADH dehydrogenase subunit 2
7482 7548 67 + tRNA trnW(uca) tRNA-Trp
7547 7616 70 tRNA trnC(gca) tRNA-Cys
7616 7681 66 tRNA trnY(gua) tRNA-Tyr
7682 9221 1540 + CDS COX1 cytochrome c oxidase subunit I
9216 9279 64 + tRNA trnL(uaa) tRNA-Leu
9279 9951 673 + CDS COX2 cytochrome c oxidase subunit II
9949 10020 72 + tRNA trnK(cuu) tRNA-Lys
10019 10084 66 + tRNA trnD(guc) tRNA-Asp
10048 10246 199 + CDS ATP8 ATP synthase F0 subunit 8
10239 10914 676 + CDS ATP6 ATP synthase F0 subunit 6
10913 11701 789 + CDS COX3 cytochrome c oxidase subunit III
11700 11763 64 + tRNA trnG(ucc) tRNA-Gly
11751 12120 370 + CDS ND3 NADH dehydrogenase subunit 3
12106 12167 62 + tRNA trnA(ugc) tRNA-Ala
12176 12231 56 + tRNA trnR(ucg) tRNA-Arg
12228 12294 67 + tRNA trnN(guu) tRNA-Asn
12292 12357 66 + tRNA trnS(ucu) tRNA-Ser
12364 12429 66 + tRNA trnE(uuc) tRNA-Glu
12433 12499 67 + tRNA trnT(ugu) tRNA-Thr
12514 12994 481 + CDS ND6 NADH dehydrogenase subunit 6
12993 14127 1135 + CDS CYTB cytochrome b
14125 14196 72 + tRNA trnS(uga) tRNA-Ser
14197 14263 66 tRNA trnF(gaa) tRNA-Phe

3.3. Lepidocyrtinae phylogeny and evolutionary divergence of sampled species

The phylogenetic relationships of the sampled taxa, detailed in Table 1, are summarized in Fig. 14. The overall ML and BI node support values (SH-aLRT and bootstrap for ML/posterior probability for BI) was higher than 90/0.99 in most of the tree branches, with a few exceptions like the relationships between some sampled Entomobryinae and part of Lepidocyrtinae.

Figure 14. 

Phylogenetic tree of relationships of sampled Entomobryidae with placement of Rhynchocyrtus cleideae sp. nov., based on Maximum Likelihood analysis (ML) and Bayesian inference (BI) from mitochondrial genomes. Numbers at the nodes represent the SH-aLRT support, ultrafast bootstrap values (both for maximum likelihood), and the posterior probability (BI support), respectively. * Represents divergences between the ML and the BI topologies, but all taxa were recovered in the same main branch in both analyses.

Regarding the subfamilies, our tree recovered the following topology: Entomobryinae + (Seirinae + Lepidocyrtinae), all with ML and BI absolute node support. Within the Lepidocyrtinae, two main branches were obtained: one clustering the subgenera Acrocyrtus Yosii, 1959, Cinctocyrtus and Lepidocyrtus sensu stricto, together with Pseudosinella, with variable node support values and divergent internal topology between ML and BI inferences; and the second one gathering Setogaster Salmon, 1951 and Lanocyrtus Yoshii and Suhardjono, 1989 taxa, together with Rhynchocyrtus cleideae sp. nov., where the BI node support was absolute to all internal branches, while ML support values were 99 or higher. The only subgenus of Lepidocyrtus with more than one sampled species in our analyses was Setogaster, represented by three Neotropical species, and it was recovered as a paraphyletic taxon (Fig. 14).

Table 4 presents the estimated evolutionary divergence between the complete COX1 sequences of the sampled species. The number of base substitutions per site using Kimura 2-parametrer model ranged from 0.171, between Lepidocyrtus (Setogaster) nigrosetosus and Lepidocyrtus (Lanocyrtus) fimetarius, and 0.316, between R. cleideae sp. nov. and L. (Lepidocyrtus) curvicollis, with an average of 0.266 among all the species. Similarly, based on p-distance values, the number of base differences ranged from 0.151, L. (S.) nigrosetosus x L. (La.) fimetarius to 0.255, Rhynchocyrtus cleideae sp. nov. x L. (L.) curvicollis, with an average of 0.222 across all sampled species. The obtained divergence values, together with the morphological aspects of the sampled taxa are enough to support them as independent species (as recently discussed in Rodrigues et al. 2024), but divergence values between sampled species of Setogaster were inconsistent when compared to R. cleideae sp. nov. and L. (La.) fimetarius. In this context, the Neotropical L. (S.) nigrosetosus exhibited remarkably low estimated evolutionary divergence from the Chinese sample of L. (La.) fimetarius, much lower than that observed with its closely related L. sotoi. Similarly, R. cleideae sp. nov. showed a lower estimated divergence with L. (S.) nigrosetosus than the latter did from an unidentified Brazilian species of the same subgenus, L. (S.) sp. (see Tables 1 and 4, and Fig. 14).

Complementing Table 4 comparison, Table 5 shows the estimated evolutionary divergence between parcial COX1 sequences of the same sampled Lepidocyrtinae. The results were somewhat similar to those obtained using the complete gene. The number of base substitutions per site using Kimura 2-parametrer model ranged from 0.185, between L. (La.) fimetarius and L. (S.) nigrosetosus; and 0.308, between L. (Le.) curvicollis and R. cleidae sp. nov. Alternatively, based on p-distance values, such differences ranged from 0.161, also between L. (La.) fimetarius and L. (S.) nigrosetosus; and 0.229, between L. (Le.) curvicollis and L. (S.) sp. As in the case of the complete COX1, the partial COX1 also supported a very close relationship between L. (S.) nigrosetosus and L. (La.) fimetarius, and between R. cleideae sp. nov. and L. (S.) nigrosetosus (see Table 5).

Table 4.

Estimates of evolutionary divergence between sequences of the complete COX1 (1539 bp) from sampled species*: number of base substitutions/differences per site between sequences using Kimura 2-parameter model and p-distance, respectively.

Species** L. (Le.) curvicollis R. cleideae sp. nov. L. (S.) sotoi L. (C.) cinctus L. (S.) sp. L. (La.) fimetarius P. tumula L. (S.) nigrosetosus L. (A.) sp.
L. (Le.) curvicollis
R. cleideae sp. nov. 0.316/0.255
L. (S.) sotoi 0.311/0.252 0.253/0.213
L. (C.) cinctus 0.281/0.232 0.247/0.209 0.269/0.225
L. (S.) sp. 0.303/0.246 0.272/0.227 0.254/0.214 0.244/0.207
L. (La.) fimetarius 0.304/0.247 0.253/0.214 0.218/0.188 0.256/0.216 0.265/0.222
P. tumula 0.305/0.248 0.267/0.224 0.260/0.218 0.241/0.205 0.280/0.232 0.273/0.227
L. (S.) nigrosetosus 0.298/0.244 0.231/0.198 0.215/0.186 0.257/0.216 0.272/0.227 0.171/0.151 0.263/0.221
L. (A.) sp. 0.295/0.241 0.266/0.222 0.269/0.225 0.265/0.221 0.260/0.218 0.282/0.232 0.273/0.228 0.276/0.229
Legends: *Analyses based on Kimura 1980, Kumar et al. (2018) and Stecher et al. (2020). ** (Le.) = Lepidocyrtus subgenus; (S.) = Setogaster subgenus; (C.) = Cinctocyrtus subgenus; (La.) = Lanocyrtus subgenus; (A.) = Acrocyrtus subgenus.
Table 5.

Estimates of evolutionary divergence between sequences of partial COX1 (658 bp) from sampled species*: number of base substitutions/differences per site between sequences using Kimura 2-parameter model and p-distance, respectively.

Species** L. (A.) sp. L. (A.) cinctus L. (Le.) curvicollis L. (La.) fimetarius L. (S.) nigrosetosus L. (S.) sotoi L. (S.) sp. P. tumula R. cleideae sp. nov.
L. (A.) sp.
L. (A.) cinctus 0.244/0.207
L. (Le.) curvicollis 0.267 0.222 0.274/0.227
L. (La.) fimetarius 0.275/0.227 0.239/0.203 0.274/0.227
L. (S.) nigrosetosus 0.242/0.205 0.235/0.200 0.267/0.224 0.185/0.161
L. (S.) sotoi 0.270/0.226 0.274/0.227 0.296/0.243 0.206/0.179 0.217/0.188
L. (S.) sp. 0.244/0.207 0.231/0.198 0.277/0.229 0.224/0.193 0.246/0.208 0.267/0.222
P. tumula 0.256/0.215 0.210/0.182 0.257/0.215 0.253/0.214 0.235/0.201 0.258/0.217 0.271/0.226
R. cleideae sp. nov. 0.255/0.214 0.232/0.198 0.308/0.250 0.255/0.214 0.219/0.189 0.246/0.208 0.241/0.205 0.255/0.215
Legends: *Analyses based on Kimura 1980, Kumar et al. (2018) and Stecher et al. (2020). ** (Le.) = Lepidocyrtus subgenus; (S.) = Setogaster subgenus; (C.) = Cinctocyrtus subgenus; (La.) = Lanocyrtus subgenus; (A.) = Acrocyrtus subgenus.

4. Discussion

4.1. Ecological and taxonomical remarks on R. cleideae sp. nov.

This study expands the known distribution of Rhynchocyrtus in the northeastern region of Brazil, adding new records for the states of Alagoas and Rio Grande do Norte. The genus is endemic to Brazil and is known to occur in the Atlantic Forest biome, particularly in coastal forest ecosystems (Mendonça and Fernandes 2007; Zeppelini et al. 2025). Its predominant presence in leaf litter microhabitats and on forest floor surfaces suggests an epedaphic or even atmobiotic lifestyle, as observed in representatives of Lepidocyrtus (Soto-Adames 2000; Mateos and Lukić 2019).

It is very likely that the distinctive morphology of the mouthparts in Rhynchocyrtus is associated with the selective consumption of resources found in forested microhabitats, which we could not identify at this time. Collembola can occupy different feeding guilds, exhibiting either generalist or specialized feeding habits (Hopkin 1997; Christiansen et al. 2009; Chahartaghi et al. 2005; Malcicka et al. 2017). The hypothesis of selective consumption of Rhynchocyrtus species is based on the observation of other Collembola, like the Neanuridae, which hold strong modifications on the mouthparts, resulting in distinct feeding habits (Hopkin 1997; Christiansen et al. 2009). A dedicated study on the diet of Rhynchocyrtus species is needed to test such a hypothesis.

Although at first our new species may look somewhat similar to its sole congener and type species, Rhynchocyrtus klausi, R. cleideae sp. nov. differs from the latter in many features, especially: body coloration pattern, with Th II laterally pigmented (Th II to Abd II in R. klausi), Abd III with a lateral spot (absent in R. klausi), and Abd II with a transversal band (lateral spot in R. klausi). On the head, the new species differs in A series with 3 mac (5 in R. klausi), maxilla with 1 sickle-shaped tooth and two lamellae, being the distal lamella apically rounded (2 teeth, 3 lamellae and posterior lamellar oval in R. klausi), and postlabial region and cephalic groove with some smooth chaetae (all ciliate in R. klausi). Rhynchocyrtus cleideae sp. nov. differs from the type species of the genus in dorsal chaetotaxy by: Abd II with m3 mac (absent in R. klausi), Abd III with 2 lateral mac (3 R. klausi), and Abd IV with 12–13 lateral mac (15 in R. klausi). The new species also differs by unguis with paired m.t. and a.t. present (m.t. unpaired and a.t. absent in R. klausi), sublobal plate with 3 appendages (devoid in R. klausi), and manubrial plate with 4–5 chaetae (7–8 in R. klausi) (Mendonça and Fernandes 2007). See Table 2 for more comparisons between the species.

We could not compare the new species with R. klausi regarding some features like dorsal microchaetotaxy of head and trunk, entire postlabial and coxae chaetotaxy, complete pattern of body psp, sensilla number on Abd IV and posterior collophore, due to the absence of such information in the original description (Mendonça and Fernandes 2007). A future additional study of R. klausi, whose type material was lost in the devastating fire of the Museu Nacional of Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (MNRJ) in September 2018, may reveal further differences between the two species of the genus.

4.2. Phylogenetic placement of Rhynchocyrtus and the troubled systematics of Lepidocyrtinae

Our phylogenetic analyses support, with high node values, Rhynchocyrtus as an ingroup of Neotropical Setogaster,a subgenus of Lepidocyrtus, challenging both the status of the first as a generic lineage of Lepidocyrtinae, and the validity of the latter as a monophyletic subgenus. In fact, the Chinese population of Lepidocyrtus (Lanocyrtus) fimetarius was also recovered as part of the Setogaster clade, casting further doubts about the monophyly and diagnostic boundaries of these subgenera. Not only does our phylogenetic tree (Fig. 14) support such close relationships, but the mitochondrial gene order of Rhynchocyrtus also matches the pattern observed in the two sampled Setogaster species (Fig. 13). Furthermore, the evolutionary distances estimate between L. (S.) sotoi and L. (S.) nigrosetosus and R. cleideae sp. nov. show below-average divergence when compared to the full set of sampled species (Tables 4 and 5).

It is also worth noting that our data support that Rhynchocyrtus is not closely related to Lepidocyrtus (Cinctocyrtus), as previously suggested by Mendonça and Fernandes (2007), despite some similarities shared by both lineages like absence of antennal, legs and collophore scales, and presence of the dental basal tubercle (Mendonça and Fernandes 2007; Cipola et al. 2018).

The current systematics of Lepidocyrtinae is mostly based on morphological traits (like in Yoshii 1982; Yoshii and Suhardjono 1989, 1992; Cipola et al. 2018). Even so, several previous studies have highlighted the difficulties in distinguishing monophyletic lineages within the subfamily based on morphology, with some traditional taxa already recognized as para or polyphyletic genera (Christiansen 1960, 1961, 1988; Christiansen and Bellinger 1991; Soto-Adames 2000, 2002; Cipola et al. 2018; Mateos et al. 2018; Winkler et al. 2020; Godeiro et al. 2021; Kováč et al. 2023). A similar situation is likely to occur among the subgenera of Lepidocyrtus, due to overlapping or ambiguous diagnostic morphological characters that do not accurately reflect natural lineages (Christiansen and Bellinger 1991; Soto-Adames 2000; Cipola et al. 2018). For instance, our phylogeny pointed out that lineages lacking the dental tubercle, like Lepidocyrtus sensu stricto, Lanocyrtus and Pseudosinella, are not closely related (Fig. 14). Such an observation supports the idea that the dental tubercle was lost multiple times within Lepidocyrtinae, in line with the notes of Godeiro et al. (2021) on the internal evolution of the subfamily.

Although preliminary in the broader context of global Lepidocyrtinae extant diversity, our data support that certain morphological traits, such as the dental tubercle (observed in Setogaster and Rhynchocyrtus, but mostly absent in Lanocyrtus), the absence of scales on at least Ant. I and femora (shared by Lanocyrtus and Rhynchocyrtus, but variable in Setogaster), and the mucronal chaeta morphology (with spinelet in Setogaster, but without in Lanocyrtus and Rhynchocyrtus) (Yoshii 1982; Yoshii and Suhardjno 1989; Mendonça and Fernandes 2007; Winkler and Traser 2012; Cipola et al. 2018), are variable within the clade that includes these subgenera, and therefore carry limited, if any, phylogenetic signal. A more viable approach to delimiting valid internal divisions within Lepidocyrtus, and likely to other Lepidocyrtinae, is the establishment of species groups based on more detailed dorsal chaetotaxy, and/or on the distribution pattern of psp across the body and appendages. Recent studies like Mateos et al. (2018, 2021, 2023) and Winkler et al. (2020) showed some of these characters, in conjunct, present phylogenetic signals able to circumscribe natural groups within Lepidocyrtus. Indeed, the dorsal chaetotaxy in Entomobryoidea has proven to hold significant phylogenetic value in defining higher suprageneric taxa (Szeptycki 1979; Zhang and Deharveng 2015; Zhang et al. 2019; Godeiro et al. 2021, 2023), while recent studies suggest that the distribution of body and appendages psp may also carry important systematic information for certain genera within the superfamily (Deharveng et al. 2018; Mateos et al. 2021).

Even if our dataset is more representative of Lepidocyrtinae than those used in previous studies based on mitogenomes (e.g., Godeiro et al. 2021; Bellini et al. 2023), and our analyses do not support Rhynchocyrtus as a full genus of Lepidocyrtinae, we prefer to retain its current status at this time. Our sampled species are clearly insufficient to confidently test all subgenera of Lepidocyrtus, one of the largest and most widespread extant springtail genera (Bellinger et al. 1996–2024), or to resolve the paraphyly of Setogaster. Only the inclusion of additional species from diverse zoogeographical regions, as well as from all genera and subgenera within Lepidocyrtinae, will allow for a more accurate understanding of its internal relationships and a clearer delimitation of its generic and subgeneric boundaries.

5. Conclusions

Rhynchocyrtus cleideae sp. nov. is the first species in the genus for which the homology of several chaetotaxic features is detailed. Its mitogenomic profile is comparable to that of certain Neotropical species of Lepidocyrtus (Setogaster), with which it shares a close genetic distance. Unexpectedly, we found that this cluster also includes the Chinese population of Lepidocyrtus (Lanocyrtus) fimetarius. All these sampled taxa formed a strongly supported clade within Lepidocyrtinae in our analyses, suggesting the paraphyly of Setogaster and casting doubt on the phylogenetic relevance of some diagnostic features currently used for subgeneric delimitation. Our results also indicate that Rhynchocyrtus is not closely related to Lepidocyrtus (Cinctocyrtus), as previously proposed. However, due to the limited taxon sampling in our dataset, we were unable to test whether Cinctocyrtus constitutes a monophyletic lineage. Further studies with broader sampling, including species from diverse subgenera and species groups worldwide, are needed to better resolve and delimit the complex systematics of Lepidocyrtinae.

6. Declarations

Availability of data and materials. The mitochondrial genome of Rhynchocyrtus cleideae sp. nov. and raw sequencing data will be available in NCBI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) under the accession numbers PV872867 and SRR34434446, respectively, associated to bioproject number: PRJNA1125622. Data on other samples used in our analyses are listed in Table 1. The studied specimens for morphological depictions and comparisons are deposited at CC/UFRN and INPA.

Competing interests. The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions. Conceptualization: BCB, JSF, NGC. Data curation: BCB, JSF, NGC, NNG. Formal analysis: JSF, NGC, NNG. Funding acquisition: BCB, NNG. Investigation: BCB, JSF, NGC. Methodology: JSF, NNG. Project administration: BCB. Resources: BCB, NNG. Software: JSF, NNG. Supervision: BCB. Validation: BCB, NGC, NNG. Visualization: BCB, NGC, NNG. Writing – original draft: JSF, NGC, BCB, NNG. Writing – review and editing: BCB, NNG.

7. Acknowledgments

This research was funded by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development of Brazil (CNPq), grant numbers 309114/2021-7 (Bruno Bellini project); and 174716/2023-0 (Nikolas Cipola Junior Postdoctoral-PDJ scholarship); the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel of Brazil (CAPES), grant number 001 (Josemária de França scholarship); and the National Natural Science Foundation of China – Research fund for international young scientists, grant number 32350410418 (Nerivânia Godeiro project). We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for carefully revising the manuscript and providing ideas to improve it. We also thank Mariane Melo Pereira for providing specimens of the new species, and Nathália Michelly da Cunha Santos for helping with the visualization of the phylogenetic trees.

8. References

  • Bellinger PF, Christiansen KA, Janssens F (1996–2024) Checklist of the Collembola of the World. http://www.collembola.org. Accessed 18 July 2025.
  • Bellini BC, Zhang F, Souza PGC, Santos-Costa RC, Medeiros GS, Godeiro NN (2023) The Evolution of Collembola Higher Taxa (Arthropoda, Hexapoda) Based on Mitogenome Data. Diversity 15: 1–26. https://doi.org/10.3390/d15010007
  • Bourlet A (1839) Mémoire sur les Podures. Mémoires de la Société des sciences, de l’agriculture et des arts de Lille 1: 377–417.
  • Capella-Gutiérrez S, Silla-Martínez JM, Gabaldón T (2009) trimAl: a tool for automated alignment trimming in large-scale phylogenetic analyses. Bioinformatics 25(15): 1972–1973. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btp348
  • Christiansen KA (1958a) The Nearctic members of the genus Entomobrya (Collembola). Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology 118: 440–545.
  • Christiansen KA (1958b) The Entomobryiform male Genital Plate. Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Science 65: 474–476.
  • Christiansen KA, Bellinger P (1991) Phylogeny of the Hawaiian Species of the Genus Lepidocyrtus (Collembola, Entomobryidae). Revue d’Écologie et de Biologie du Sol 28(2): 207–215.
  • Christiansen KA, Bellinger P, Janssen F (2009) Collembola: (Springtails, Snow Fleas). In: Resh VH, Cardé RT (eds) Encyclopedia of Insects. 2nd ed. Academic Press, San Diego, 206–210 pp.
  • Cipola NG, Morais JW, Bellini BC (2014) A new species of Seira (Collembola: Entomobryidae: Seirini) from Northern Brazil, with the addition of new chaetotaxic characters. Zoologia 31(5): 489–495. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1984-46702014000500009
  • Cipola NG, Morais JW, Bellini BC (2018) New subgenus and four species of Lepidocyrtus Bourlet (Collembola, Entomobryidae, Lepidocyrtinae) from Amazon. Insect Systematics and Evolution 50(2): 189–234. https://doi.org/10.1163/1876312X-00002184
  • Cipola NG, Viana SS (2023) Two new species of Lepidocyrtus (Fractocyrtus) Cipola & Bellini (Collembola, Entomobryidae, Lepidocyrtinae), with new records and a new name for Lepidocyrtus (F.) americanus Cipola & Bellini, 2018. Zootaxa 5369(3): 369–399. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5369.3.3
  • Deharveng L, Jantarit S, Bedos A (2018) Revisiting Lepidonella Yosii (Collembola: Paronellidae): character overview, checklist of world species and reassessment of Pseudoparonella doveri Carpenter. Annales de la Société Entomologique de France 54(5): 381–400. https://doi.org/10.1080/00379271.2018.1507687
  • Edgar RC (2004) MUSCLE: multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput. Nucleic Acids Research 32(5): 1792–1797.
  • Felsenstein J (1985) Confidence limits on phylogenies: An approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 39: 783–791.
  • Fjellberg A (1999) The Labial Palp in Collembola. Zoologischer Anzeiger 237: 309–330.
  • García AE, Galià-Camps C, Pérez-González CM, Víquez D, Mateos E (2024) Expanding Soil Invertebrate Knowledge in Panama: The Genus Lepidocyrtus (Collembola, Entomobryidae) in the Parque Natural Metropolitano as a Study Case. Insects 15: 951. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects15120951
  • Gertz EM, Yu YK, Agarwala R, Schäffer AA, Altschul SF (2006) Composition-based statistics and translated nucleotide searches: improving the TBLASTN module of BLAST. BMC Biology 4(1): 41. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7007-4-41
  • Godeiro NN, Bellini BC, Ding N, Xu C, Ding Y, Zhang F (2021) A mitogenomic phylogeny of the Entomobryoidea (Collembola): A comparative perspective. Zoologica Scripta 50(5): 658–666. https://doi.org/10.1111/zsc.12487
  • Godeiro NN, Ding Y, Cipola NG, Jantarit S, Bellini BC, Zhang F (2023) Phylogenomics and systematics of Entomobryoidea (Collembola): marker design, phylogeny and classification. Cladistics 39(2): 101–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/cla.12521
  • Godeiro NN, Pacheco J, Liu S, Cipola NG, Berbel-Filho WM, Zhang F, Gilbert MTP, Bellini BC (2020) Phylogeny of Neotropical Seirinae (Collembola, Entomobryidae) based on mitochondrial genomes. Zoologica Scripta 49(3): 329–339. https://doi.org/10.1111/zsc.12408
  • Good R (1974) The geography of flowering plants. 4th ed. London: Longman Group.
  • Guindon S, Dufayard J-F, Lefort V, Anisimova M, Hordijk W, Gascuel O (2010) New algorithms and methods to estimate maximum-likelihood phylogenies: assessing the performance of PhyML 3.0. Systematic Biology 59(3): 307–321. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syq010
  • Hoang DT, Chernomor O, von Haeseler A, Minh BQ, Vinh LS (2018) UFBoot2: improving the ultrafast bootstrap approximation. Molecular Biology and Evolution 35(2): 518–522. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msx281
  • Hopkin SP (1997) Biology of the springtails (Insecta: Collembola). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Hüther W (1986) New aspects in taxonomy of Lepidocyrtus (Collembola). In: Dallai R (ed) 2nd International Seminar on Apterygota. Siena: University of Siena, 61–65 pp.
  • Jordana R, Arbea JI, Simón C, Luciáñez MJ (1997) Fauna Iberica. Vol. 8. Collembola Poduromorpha. Madrid: 1st ed. Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales.
  • Jühling F, Putz J, Bernt M, Donath A, Middendorf M, Florentz C, Stadler PF (2012) Improved systematic tRNA gene annotation allows new insights into the evolution of mitochondrial tRNA structures and into the mechanisms of mitochondrial genome rearrangements. Nucleic Acids Research 40(7): 2833–2845. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkr1150
  • Kalyaanamoorthy S, Minh BQ, Wong TKF, von Haeseler A, Jermiin LS (2017) ModelFinder: Fast model selection for accurate phylogenetic estimates. Nature Methods 14(6): 587–589. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.4285
  • Katoh K, Standley DM (2013) MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: Improvements in performance and usability. Molecular Biology and Evolution 30(4): 772–780. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/mst010
  • Kimura M (1980) A simple method for estimating evolutionary rate of base substitutions through comparative studies of nucleotide sequences. Journal of Molecular Evolution 16(2): 111–120.
  • Kováč L, Zurovcova M, Raschmanova N, Jurekova N, Papac V, Parimuchova A (2023) Troglomorphic adaptations on the northern European frontier: the phylogeny of the cave Pseudosinella (Hexapoda, Collembola) in the Western Carpathians. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 11: 1169911. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2023.1169911
  • Krzywinski M, Schein J, Birol I, Connors J, Gascoyne R, Horsman D, Jones SJ, Marra MA (2009) Circos: an information aesthetic for comparative genomics. Genome Research 19: 1639–1645. https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.092759.109
  • Kück P, Longo GC (2014) FASconCAT-G: extensive functions for multiple sequence alignment preparations concerning phylogenetic studies. Frontiers in Zoology 11(1): 81. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12983-014-0081-x
  • Kumar S, Stecher G, Li M, Knyaz C, Tamura K (2018) MEGA X: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis across computing platforms. Molecular Biology and Evolution 35(6): 1547–1549. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msy096
  • Lartillot N, Rodrigues N, Stubbs D, Richer J (2013) PhyloBayes MPI: phylogenetic reconstruction with infinite mixtures of profiles in a parallel environment. Systematic Biology 62(4): 611–615. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syt022
  • Lee I, Koo J, Park KH (2022) Complete mitochondrial genome of the Korean endemic springtail Homidia koreana Lee & Lee, 1981 (Collembola: Entomobryidae). Mitochondrial DNA B 7(1): 135–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/23802359.2021.2015268
  • Li D, Liu C, Luo R, Sadakane K, Lam T (2015) MEGAHIT: an ultra-fast single-node solution for large and complex metagenomics assembly via succinct de Bruijn graph. Bioinformatics 31(10): 1674–1676. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btv033
  • Li H, Handsaker B, Wysoker A, Fennell T, Ruan J, Homer N, Marth G, Abecasis G, Durbin R, Genome Project Data Processing Subgroup (2009) The sequence alignment/map format and SAMtools. Bioinformatics 25(16): 2078–2079. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btp352
  • Malcicka M, Berg MP, Ellers J (2017) Ecomorphological adaptations in Collembola in relation to feeding strategies and microhabitat. European Journal of Soil Biology 78: 82–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejsobi.2016.12.004
  • Mari-Mutt JA (1979) A revision of the genus Dicranocentrus Schött (Insecta: Collembola: Entomobryidae). Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 259: 1–79.
  • Mateos E, Escuer P, Buşmachiu G, Riutort M, Álvarez-Presas M (2018) Untangling Lepidocyrtus (Collembola, Entomobryidae): new molecular data shed light on the relationships of the European groups. Invertebrate Systematics 32(3): 639–651. https://doi.org/10.1071/IS17056
  • Mateos E, Lukić M (2019) New European Lepidocyrtus Bourlet, 1839 (Collembola, Entomobryidae) with the first description of feeding-related dancing behaviour in Collembola. Zootaxa 4550(2): 221–235. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4550.2.4
  • Mateos E, Winkler D, Riutort M, Álvarez-Presas M (2021) New morphological and molecular data reveal an important underestimation of species diversity and indicate evolutionary patterns in European Lepidocyrtus (Collembola: Entomobryidae). Invertebrate Systematics 35: 471–492. https://doi.org/10.1071/IS20016
  • Mateos E, Zhang B, Álvarez-Presas M (2023) New species of Lepidocyrtus (Collembola, Entomobryidae) from Italy with a discussion of characters defining European Lepidocyrtus lignorum-group. Zootaxa 5270(2): 306–324. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5270.2.7
  • Mendonça MC, Fernandes LH (2007) Rhynchocyrtus gen. nov. (Collembola, Entomobryidae) from the Southeast and Northeast Brazilian regions. Zootaxa 1660(1): 45–51.
  • Meng G, Li Y, Yang C, Liu S (2019) MitoZ: A toolkit for animal mitochondrial genome assembly, annotation and visualization. Nucleic Acids Research 47(11): e63. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkz173
  • Minh BQ, Schmidt HA, Chernomor O, Schrempf D, Woodhams MD, von Haeseler A, Lanfear R (2020) IQ-TREE 2: New models and efficient methods for phylogenetic inference in the genomic era. Molecular Biology and Evolution 37(5): 1530–1534. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msaa015
  • Rodrigues IVB, Souza PGC, Nunes RC, Godeiro NN, Bellini BC (2024) A century later: a new species of Mastigoceras Handschin, 1924 (Collembola, Orchesellidae), with morphological and systematic updates on the genus. ZooKeys 1217: 79–100. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.1217.132351
  • Salmon JT (1951) Keys and bibliography to the Collembola. Zoological Publications of the Victoria University College 8: 1–82.
  • Schäffer C (1897) Apterygoten. Hamburger Magalhänische Sammlung 1(1): 1–48.
  • Soto-Adames FN (2000) Phylogeny of Neotropical Lepidocyrtus (Collembola: Entomobryidae): first assessment of patterns of speciation in Puerto Rico and phylogenetic relevance of some subgeneric diagnostic characters. Systematic Entomology 25(4): 485–502.
  • Soto-Adames FN (2002) Molecular phylogeny of the Puerto Rican Lepidocyrtus and Pseudosinella (Hexapoda: Collembola), a validation of Yoshii’s “color pattern species”. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 25(1): 27–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1055-7903(02)00250-6
  • Soto-Adames FN (2010) Two new species and descriptive notes for five Pseudosinella species (Hexapoda: Collembola: Entomobryidae) from West Virginian (USA) caves. Zootaxa 2331(1): 1–34.
  • Stecher G, Tamura K, Kumar S (2020) Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis (MEGA) for macOS. Molecular Biology and Evolution 37(4): 1237–1239. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msz312
  • Sun X, Yu DY, Xie ZJ, Dong J, Ding YH, Yao H, Greenslade P (2020) Phylomitogenomic analyses on Collembola higher taxa with enhanced taxon sampling and discussion on method selection. PLoS ONE 15(4): e0230827. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230827
  • Szeptycki A (1979) Chaetotaxy of the Entomobryidae and its phylogenetical significance. Morpho-systematic studies of Collembola IV. 1st ed. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
  • Tömösvary Ö (1882) Adatok hazánk Thysanura-Faunájához. Matematikai és Természettudományi Közlemények Magyar Akadémia 18: 119–131.
  • Wahlgren E (1906) Apterygoten aus Ägypten und dem Sudan nebst Bemerkungen zur Verbreitung und Systematik der Collembolen. In: Results of the Swedish Zoological Expedition to Egypt and the White Nile 1901 under the Direction of L.A. Jägerskiöld. Uppsala: p. 1–72.
  • Winkler D, Mateos E, Traser G, Lakatos F, Tóth V (2020) New insight into the systematics of European Lepidocyrtus (Collembola: Entomobryidae) using molecular and morphological data. Insects 11(5): 302. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects11050302
  • Winkler D, Traser GN (2012) Explanation of the European Lepidocyrtus pallidusserbicus group (Collembola, Entomobryidae), with description of new species from Hungary. Zootaxa 3394: 35–47. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3394.1.4
  • Yoshii R (1982) Lepidocyrtid Collembola of Sabah. Entomological Reports of the Sabah Forest Research Centre 5: 1–47.
  • Yoshii R, Suhardjono YR (1989) Notes on the Collembolan fauna of Indonesia and its vicinities I. Miscellaneous notes, with special references to Seirini and Lepidocyrtini. Acta Zoologica Asiatica Orientalis 1: 23–90.
  • Yoshii R, Suhardjono YR (1992) Collembolan fauna of Indonesia and its affinities III: Collembola of Timor Island. Acta Zoologica Asiatica Orientalis 2: 75–96.
  • Yosii R (1959) Studies on the Collembolan fauna of Malay and Singapore with special reference to the genera: Lobella, Lepidocyrtus and Callyntrura. Contributions from the Biological Laboratory, Kyoto University 10: 1–65.
  • Zhang F, Bellini BC, Soto-Adames FN (2019) New insights into the systematics of Entomobryoidea (Collembola: Entomobryomorpha): first instar chaetotaxy, homology and classification. Zoologica Systematica 44: 249–278. https://doi.org/10.11865/zs.201926
  • Zhang F, Chen Z, Dong RR, Deharveng L, Stevens MI, Huang YH, Zhu CD (2014) Molecular phylogeny reveals independent origins of body scales in Entomobryidae (Hexapoda: Collembola). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 70: 231–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2013.09.024
  • Zhang F, Deharveng L (2015) Systematic revision of Entomobryidae (Collembola) by integrating molecular and new morphological evidence. Zoologica Scripta 44(4): 298–311. https://doi.org/10.1111/zsc.12100
  • Zhang F, Sun D-D, Yu D-Y, Wang B-X (2015) Molecular phylogeny supports S-chaetae as a key character better than jumping organs and body scales in classification of Entomobryoidea (Collembola). Scientific Reports 5(1): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep12471

Supplementary material

Supplementary material 1 

Table S1

França JS, Bellini BC, Godeiro NN, Cipola NG (2025)

Data type: .xlsx

Explanation notes: Data Individual models selected by Model Finder for the Maximum Likelihood analyses with IQTree.

This dataset is made available under the Open Database License (http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0). The Open Database License (ODbL) is a license agreement intended to allow users to freely share, modify, and use this dataset while maintaining this same freedom for others, provided that the original source and author(s) are credited.
Download file (12.96 kb)
login to comment