Carolinea 77

172 Carolinea 77 (2019) and N orton (1980). Since Subbelba possesses priority and no differences between the two type species are known which would justify a separa- tion at generic level, I view Caenobelba as a ju- nior synonym of Subbelba , at least until the type of the latter is redescribed. It should be noted that I here use a concept of Subbelba that is quite dif- ferent from that of S ubías (2019 ) in that I do not see Dyobelba N orton , 1979, and Quatrobelba N orton , 1980, as being subgenera of Subbelba but instead view them as being distinct genera. The members of the Belba sculpta species group can therefore be differentiated from Subbelba only in the presence of an associated seta d on the tibia of leg IV. Two of the four presently known species of the genus Belbodamaeus , namely Belbodamaeus rarituberculatus B ayartogtokh , 2004, and B . in­ dicus differ from members of the Belba sculpta species group only in the presence of spinae ad- natae. From a phylogenetic perspective, a strong argument may be made for transferring these two species to Belba . The “ Belba species B” of W al ­ ter et al. (2016) appears to be a typical represen- tative of the sculpta group, except that it shows spinae adnatae. Belbodamaeus marginatus K ulijew , 1967, not listed in B ulanova - Z achvatkina (1975), is in all likelyhood a Porobelba spinosa ( S ellnick , 1920) instead, based on its description. The type spe- cies of the genus, Belbodamaeus tuberculatus B ulanova -Z achvatkina , 1967, is very incompletely portrayed. It is characterized by large spinae ad- natae, presence of prodorsal tubercles Ba and Da, absence of a propodolateral apophysis, trochanteral setation 1-1-2-1, and a tibial asso- ciated setation of 0-1-1-1 ( B ulanova - Z achvatkina 1975). No other information about the setal for- mulae of the leg segments or the ventral struc- tures is provided by its author. Belbodamaeus tu­ berculatus requires redescription from topotypic material before any other species can reliably be situated in the genus. The location of the holotype of Belbodamaeus tuberculatus is not specified by B ulanova - Z ach ­ vatkina (1967, 1975), and Belbodamaeus is not listed in the species catalogue of the Siberian Zoological Museum, which houses a substantial damaeid collection, including numerous types of species named by B ulanova - Z achvatkina . At the present time the classification of species of Damaeidae possessing both spinae adnatae and a tibial associated setation of 0-1-1-1 is problem- atic. In numerous contributions, including virtually all major diagnostic keys of the Damaeidae publis- hed so far, it is stated that Dameobelba minu­ tissima ( S ellnick , 1920), displays small spinae adnatae ( S ellnick , 1960; B ulanova -Z achvatkina 1967, 1975; B alogh 1972; B alogh & B alogh 1992) or that the development of these struc- tures is intraspecifically variable ( P érez -Í ñigo 1997, M iko 2006). These assumptions appear to be based on an early publication by G rand ­ jean (1936, p. 67), who noted that the genus possesses spinae adnatae, but that these were minute. However, subsequently this author re- examined specimens from several locations in France, and also a paratype from Germany sent to him by S ellnick and concluded: “En 1936 j´ai probablement confondu les lyrifissures ia avec des spinae adnatae” ( G randjean 1955: p. 212). Already N orton (1977a) was aware of this pas- sage in which G randjean concluded that spinae adnatae are not present in the species. In all specimens of Dameobelba minutissima exa- mined by me, these structures were similarly not detectable. Spinae adnatae have also not been detected in this species by W illmann (1931), N orton (1977a) or K ratzmann (1993). Dameobel­ ba may be distinguished from members of the Belba sculpta species group by its highly coiled spiral setae c1 and c2 which hold the exuviae of the immature stages. The morphological similarity of species in the Belba sculpta group to species in genera such as Belbodamaeus , Dameobelba and Subbelba together with the pronounced differences be- tween the sculpta and corynopus groups sug- gest that Belba may be biphyletic. A monophyly of Belba cannot be ruled out, however. The ex- istence of two very distinct lineages of Belba , with no species having a set of intermediate or mixed characteristics, is remarkable. It would be worthwhile to investigate the phylogeny of spe- cies of Belba and of related genera with molecu- lar data. 3.4 Diagnosis of the genus Belba Belba von H eyden , 1826 Belba von H eyden , 1826. Isis, Jena 1(6): 611. Type species: Notaspis corynopus H ermann , 1804. Mem. Apt. p. 89; plate IV, fig 2. Locus typicus: Strasbourg, France. Type depository: Type or neotype not desig- nated.