The Arachnid Order Solifugae

IntroductionPhylogeny/TaxonomyBiogeography/EndemismBiology/EcologyCollections/ResearchBibliographyGlossaryLinks


PHYLOGENY/TAXONOMY

Phylogeny of the Solifugae
Keys to FamiliesFamily AmmotrechidaeFamily Ceromidae
Family Daesiidae
Family Eremobatidae

EREMOBATINAE
  Eremobates
      angustus
group
      aztecus
group
      lapazi
group
     pallipes group
      palpisetulosus
group
      scaber
group
          Eremobates actenidia
          Eremobates ascopulatus
          Eremobates clarus
          Eremobates corpink
          Eremobates ctenidiellus
          Eremobates hodai
          Eremobates icenogelei
          Eremobates legalis
          Eremobates mormonus
          Eremobates scaber
          Eremobates similis
          Eremobates socal
          Eremobates zinni
      vallis
group

  Eremocosta
  Eremorhax
  Eremothera
  Horribates

THEROBATINAE
  Chanbria
  Eremochelis
 
Hemerotrecha

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Family Galeodidae
Family Gylippidae
Family Hexisopodidae
Family Karschiidae
Family Melanoblossidae
Family Mummuciidae
Family RhagodidaeFamily Solpugidae
Catalog of the Solifugae

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Eremobates actenidia Muma 1989

Eremobates actenidia ►Muma 1989: 1, 7, 9, 49, figs 1-2; ►Brookhart and Cushing 2004: 303, 304, 307, 310, figs. 30, 59; ►Brookhart and Brookhart, 2006: 311.

HOLOTYPE: UNITED STATES: Utah: San Juan County , Monument Valley, Gouldings Trading Post (37Ί06'N, 110Ί11'W), 2 June 1953 (R.E. Ryckman, R.D. Lee, C.T. Ames, C.C. Lindt, and C.T. Christianson), 1 ♂ (holotype).  Deposited in AMNH.

Original description:
Eremobates actenidia Muma 1989: 1, 7, 9, 49, figs 1-2:

MALE HOLOTYPE: Total length 18.0 mm.

 

Length

Width

Chelicerae

4.0 mm.

2.3 mm.

Propeltidium

2.3

3.5

Palpus

17.0

 CL/CW=1.74

Leg 1

13.0

PW/PL=1.52

Leg 4

20.0

A/CP=7.94

 

 

CP = 6.3

Coloration and markings similar to those of E. septentrionis except dusky areas are fainter and less distinct. Only distinct markings on appendages are dusky palpal tarsi and apical ends of palpal metatarsi, figure 1.
Fondal notch dis
tinctly deeper than wide, no ctenidia on first post-spiracular sternite, and scopula of palpal metatarsus composed of 70 or more papillae. Otherwise, structure similar to that of other species of group. Cheliceral dentition as shown in figure 2. ECCS at 140x under normal light, as shown in figure 2; also at least 2 setae located behind and below base of principal tooth of movable cheliceral finger.


 

Figure 1.Meso-lateral view of right male palpus;  Figure 2. Ecto-lateral view of right male chelicera. Redrawn from Muma (1989).

SUBSEQUENT ACCOUNTS:
Brookhart and Cushing 2004: 303, 304, 307, 310, figs. 30, 59:

Males: Appendage and propeltidium coloration dusky yellow to brownish yellow, propeltidium tinged brownish violet on anterior and lateral margins, palpus tinged brownish violet on tarsus and metatarsus, legs dusky yellow. Cheliceral FF regularly curved, MF with small triangulate AT, no cleft, small IT with the posterior separate from the PT (Fig. 32)[sic - should be Fig. 30], no ctenidia, 70+  palpal papillae. Male holotype: Total length 18.0, chelicera length 4.0, chelicera width 2.3, propeltidium length 2.3, propeltidium width 3.5, palpus length 17.0, first leg length 13.0, fourth leg length 20.0. Ratios: A/CP 7.94, CL/CW 1.74. PL/PW 0.66, FL/FW 1.02, FW/FFW 1.70, FW/CW 6.09. Male measurements (4): Total length 17.50–21.00, chelicera length 4.92–6.25, chelicera width 2.29–2.79, propeltidium length 2.17–2.83, propeltidium width 3.75–4.58, palpus length 16.5–22.0, first leg length 12.0–13.0, fourth leg length 19.5–23.0. Ratios: A/CP 5.94–6.78, CL/CW 2–2.42, PL/PW 0.58–0.68, FL/FW 0.79–1.06, FW/FFW 1.56–2.00, CW/FFW 6.09–8.13.
Females:
Coloration as in male except the legs are lightly tinged violet at the tibia femur joint. Chelicera typical, MF with large PT, 2 IT, large AT, posterior IT in notch of PT, no cleft under AT, tiny to absent MST. Genital opercula with long, thin arms, a slightly curved interior margin ending in a lobe, wings offset, posterior margin truncate (Fig. 59). Female measurements (5): Total length 16.0–20.5, chelicera length 4.8–5.8, chelicera width 1.8–2.4, propeltidium length 2.2–2.8, propeltidium width 3.2–4.4, palpus length 14.5–16.0, first leg length 9.5–11.0, fourth leg length 16.0–17.0. Ratios: A/CP 4.88–6.37, CL/CW 2.00–2.67, PL/PW 0.57–0.75, GOL/GOW 0.67–0.80.

Fig. 30. Ectal view male right chelicerae; Fig. 59. Ventral view female genital opercula. Scale lne = 1 mm. Redrawn from Brookhart and Cushing 2004.

DISTRIBUTION: UNITED STATES: Utah - desert grass region of San Juan County.

PUBLISHED RECORds:  UNITED STATES: Utah: San Juan County, 6.4 Km N of Bluff (378179N, 1098339W), in wet pitfall  traps, 10 June–26 August 2000 (Jack & Irene Brookhart), 3 ♂, 4 ♀,  (DMNS).

nOTES: Muma (1989), in a key to members of the Eremobates scaber species group, characterized this species as having a fondal notch that is distinctly deeper than wide, dusky apical ends on the palpal metatarsi and dusky palpal tarsi, and no ctenidia.   When discussing the A/CP ratio, Muma notes that  the A/CP of 6.86 for male Eremobates c1arus indicates shorter legs than Eremobates actenidia, which has an A/CP of 7.93 for males. In diagnosing this species, Muma (ibid) reported that the lack of abdominal ctenidia distinguishes this species from all other members of the Eremobates scaber group, and further noted that it can be separated from E. ascopulatus by a scopula of 70+ papillae, that the pale legs and dusky palpal tips distinguish it from E. septentrionis, and that it is much smaller in size than most species, which also serves to distinguish it from E. gladiolus.  Brookhart and Cushing (2004), in a key to males of the scaber group, characterized this species as lacking ctenidia and having a brownish violet palpal tarus and metatarsus  Elsewhere, they stated that this species may be separated from all other scaber grouip members but E. ctenidiellus by its lack of ctenidia on the first post stigmatal segment,  noting that Eremobates ctenidiellus generally lacks ctenidia, but its dark coloration  and the shape of the fondal notch, which is significantly longer than wide, easily distinguish it from E. actenidia. They further observe that Eremobates ctenidiellus also has a high A/CP ratio indicating longer appendages and a statistically thinner male fixed finger in relation to the fondal notch. They report that the FW/FFW ratio of E. actenidia differs significantly from others in the group and indicates a thinner fixed cheliceral finger. In regards to this species' distribution, Brookhart and Cushing (2004) noted that Eremobates actenidia has only been found in the desert grass region of San Juan County, Utah.  Brookhart collected from pitfall traps set in three different habitats along a 16 km stretch of Hwy 195 in San Juan County, Utah from 29 May 2000–28 August 2000 and again on 6 June 2001. Eremobates actenidia was collected from desert grasslands but not from desert shrub or Piρon-Juniper assemblages  in this transect,. Eremobates mormonus was found 161 km east in Montezuma County, Colorado and E. corpink, new species, is found 161 km west in the Coral Pink Sand Dunes of Kane County, Utah at approximately the same latitude.   Brookhart and Brookhart (2006) include the species in an annotated checklist of continental North American Solifugae, noting that their were, at that time, four recorded specimens ("Four males and four females (DMNH)")."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

   
   
 


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.