|
PHYLOGENY/TAXONOMY

 









 
 |
Ammotrecha
cobinensis Muma 1951
Ammotrecha cobinensis ►Muma, 1951:
135, figs 302-304; ►Muma, 1970a: 46 (Table l3), 49; ►Muma, 1976: 26; ►Muma
1986: 21; ►Muma, 1987: 21; Vázquez
Rojas, 1995: 31; Vázquez Rojas, 1996e: 76; ►Harvey,
2003: 200; ►Brookhart and Brookhart, 2006:
323.
HOLOTYPE:
United
States. California: Los
Angeles County. - Covina, 30 December 1927 (J.C. Chamberlin), 1 male
(holotype). Originally deposited in the University of Utah, now at the
American Museum of Natural History. [Note: Muma (1951) lists the type locality as "Cobina, California". No such
community exists within California. The locality is therefore presumed
(Harvey 2001) to be Covina, California, a city within Los Angeles County.]
Original
description:
Muma, 1951: 135, figs 302-304:
"MALE
HOLOTYPE: Total length, 9.0 mm. Chelicerae, 0.7 mm. wide and 2.6 mm.
long. Propeltidium, 1.9 mm. wide and 1.7 mm. long. Chelicerae,
0.7 mm. wide and 2.6 mm. long. Propeltidium, 1.9 mm. wide and 1.7 mm.
long.
Coloration and markings in alcohol bleached and faded but
apparently as follows: chelicerae light yellow; propeltidium light
brown, with a narrow yellow median stripe; mesopeltidium, metapeltidium
and abdominal tergites light, with a dusky purple median stripe and a
pair of dusky submarginal stripes; legs apparently light on all
segments; palpi apparently light except on metatarsi and tarsi where
some duskiness is visible; eye tubercle dark; malleoli light.
Dentition typical of Ammotrechinae as shown in figures 302 and
303. Fixed finger not modified and lacking carina. Intermediate tooth
of movable finger about equidistant between principal and anterior
teeth. Dental group of movable finger occupying about one-fourth the
length of the finger. Flagellum as in A. peninsulana (Banks)
except it is attached over the first fondal tooth of the mesal row and
is not rolled mesally so far, covering less than one-fourth of the mesal
surface.
Palpi clothe d with long and short hairs and a moderate number
of cylinder bristles on the tarsi, metatarsi, and tibiae. Metatarsi and
tibiae also provided ventrally with eight pairs of stout cylindrical
spines.
Chelicerae nearly four times as long as wide. Propeltidium
wider than long by a ratio of 1 to 1.1. Eyes separated by slightly less
than one diameter."
[Redrawn from Muma 1951]
SUBSEQUENT ACCOUNTS:
Muma (1970a):
"Males have the legs and palpi pale
except for a faint duskiness on the palpal metatarsus and tarsus,
unmodified chelicerae, no dorsal carina, and 8 pairs of stout
cylindrical spinelike setae on the palpal metatarsus and tibia.
Females are unknown."
In Table 13 (diagnostic characters of ammotrechine species), Muma credits this species as having the following features: Tarsus
and metatarsus faintly dusky, 8 pairs of spinelike setae on the
pedipalp, and an unmodified fixed cheliceral finger.
DISTRIBUTION: United States (California), Mexico (?).
PUBLISHED RECORDS: Known only from the type series.
NOTES: Muma (1951) noted that
the holotype is missing all but one first and one third leg, a condition
which he considered as preventing its generic placement. He thus chose to
describe it "under the genus Ammotrecha, sensu lato."
Muma (1970a) stated that
the description cannot be considered
adequate until undamaged males and females have been
described, and further noted that this species was doubtfully placed and is
retained in this genus owing to the lack of both fourth legs on the only 2
specimens known. No further information was provided about the second
known specimen. Muma (1976) again referenced two collections of this
species, indicated that both are males, recorded the distribution as
USA (California) and Mexico, but provided no further information about the
second specimen. Muma (1986, 1987) stated "Muma
(1970) recorded this species from Mexico," again without providing
additional data. Vázquez Rojas (1995) included the species
in a list of the solifuges of Mexico, but recorded the distribution within
Mexico as "?".
Brookhart and Brookhart (2006) again noted that the species is known from
two males (one from Mexico), and shed no further light on the identity or
current location of the second male. They note that the holotype,
originally deposited at the University of Utah, is now at the American
Museum of Natural History (AMNH).
|
| |
|
THE UNAUTHORIZED COPYING, DISPLAYING OR OTHER USE OF PHOTOGRAPHS OR
OTHER ORIGINAL CONTENT FROM THIS SITE IS ILLLEGAL. © Copyright
2005-2008. All images in this site, even if they do not include an
individual statement of copyright, are protected under the U. S.
Copyright Act. They may not be "borrowed" or otherwise used without
the express permission of their creators. For permission, please
submit your request to
wsavary@yahoo.com.
The material included in this website is
based in part upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under
Grants 0640245 and 0640219. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions
or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
|
|