Table 1.
Range sizes, evolutionary distinctness (ED), and estimated conservation importance of members of the N. stygius species complex.
| species | Range size surface [km2]/maximum range diameter [km] | ED [substitutions per nucleotide site] | Conservation importance1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Niphargus brachytelson | Single site/0 | 0.052 | 2b |
| Niphargus chagankae sp. n. | 1679/50 | 0.042 | 3 |
| Niphargus cvajcki sp. n. | 139/20 | 0.080 | 2a |
| Niphargus goricae sp. n. | 142/32 | 0.078 | 2a |
| Niphargus gottscheeanensis sp. n. | 1946/65 | 0.045 | 3 |
| Niphargus iskae sp.n. | Single site/0 | 0.049 | 2b |
| Niphargus kapelanus sp. n. | Single site/0 | 0.037 | 2b |
| Niphargus karamani | Single site/0 | 0.074 | 1 |
| Niphargus kenki | 1001/106 | 0.056 | 2b |
| Niphargus kordunenensis sp. n. | Single site/0 | 0.084 | 1 |
| Niphargus likanus | Two sites/37 | 0.055 | 3 |
| Niphargus malagorae sp. n. | Two sites/9 | 0.064 | 3 |
| Niphargus novomestanus | 228/29 | 0.038 | 3 |
| Niphargus podpecanus | 871/46 | 0.051 | 3 |
| Niphargus stygius | 2922/85 | 0.087 | 2a |
| Niphargus zagrebensis | 1193/80 | 0.090 | 2a |
Range sizes are given as km2 or as maximal linear distance of the range to make data compliant with IUCN Red List31 and the rest of publications from subterranean biology, respectively.
1Conservation ranks are defined as follows: (1) high endemism and ED; (2a) low endemism, high ED, (2b) high endemism, low ED; (3) low endemism and ED.