The Arachnid Order Solifugae

IntroductionPhylogeny/TaxonomyBiogeography/EndemismBiology/EcologyCollections/ResearchBibliographyGlossaryLinks


PHYLOGENY/TAXONOMY

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

EREMOBATINAE
  Eremobates
      angustus
group
      aztecus
group
      lapazi
group
     pallipes
group
      palpisetulosus
group
        Eremobates affinis
        Eremobates ajoanus
        Eremobates bajadae
        Eremobates bajaensis
        Eremobates bantai
        Eremobates bixleri
        Eremobates coahuilanus
        Eremobates fagei
        Eremobates girardi
        Eremobates gracilidens
        Eremobates guenini
        Eremobates hessei
        Eremobates hystrix
        Eremobates inkopaensis
        Eremobates inyoanus
        Eremobates kastoni
        Eremobates kiseri
        Eremobates kraepelini
        Eremobates leechi
        Eremobates marathoni
        Eremobates nanus
        Eremobates nivis
        Eremobates nodularis
        Eremobates norrisi
        Eremobates otavonae
        Eremobates pallidus
        Eremobates palpisetulosus
        Eremobates papillatus
        Eremobates pimanus
        Eremobates polhemusi
        Eremobates purpusi
        Eremobates pyriflora
        Eremobates scopulatellus
        Eremobates scopulatus
        Eremobates spissus
        Eremobates tejonus
        Eremobates texanus
        Eremobates titschacki
        Eremobates tuberculatus
        Eremobates vicinus
        Eremobates villosus
        Eremobates williamsi
      scaber
group
      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 affinis (Kraepelin 1899)

Eremobates

HOLOTYPE: United States.

Original description:

SUBSEQUENT ACCOUNTS:
Brookhart and Muma 1988:22-23.

Eremobates affinis (Kraepelin)

Figures 61 to 63

Datames affinis Kraepelin 1899, p. 242. (male and female)
Eremobates affinis,
Kraepelin 1901, p. 128 (not E. affinis (Kraepelin) Muma, 1951, p. 65); Muma, 1970, p. 14. (male and female)
Eremoperna affinis
(Kraepelin), Roewer, 1934, p.
558.

TYPES: Male and female types from Arizona (Arkansas?), no locality, No. 7297, Roewer No. 9129, supposedly deposited in MNHN are actually in ZSM. These specimens agree with Kraepelin 's (1899) description and are therefore the types of the species. Those in MNHN (Muma 1970) are not the types.

DIAGNOSIS: Males distinguished by small, low, rounded dorsal spur on fixed cheliceral finger, closely grouped intermediate teeth and lack of distinct rounded anterior process on movable cheliceral finger, and lack of post-stigmatic abdominal ctenidia. Dorsal process of fixed cheliceral finger peaked in basal half of fondal notch. Females distinguished by elongate, slender, anterior lobes of opercula, large concave sided posterior notch of opercula, and wide, bowed, vulvular openings.

DESCRIPTION: Coloration pale to dark yellow with dusky purplish markings. Palpi pale to dark yellow on all segments. Legs pale to dark yellow on all segments. Propeltidia seemingly faintly dusky throughout. Mesopeltidium, metapeltidium, and abdominal terga faintly to distinctly dusky; pleura pale. Sterna pale.
Males (2) smallest of series; CP varies from 9.0-11.0 (mean 10.0). Legs moderate size;
A/CP
varies from 5.8-7.0 (mean 6.4). Fondal notches equal in width to base of fixed cheliceral finger; length/width ratio same for both males 0.9 (figs. 60-62). Mesal tooth of movable cheliceral finger small but distinct on type and small but indistinct on other male.
Female largest of series; CP 12.8. Legs shortest of series; AlCP 3.8. Mesal tooth of movable cheliceral finger small but distinct. Opercula 2.1 times wider than long with anterior lobes indistinct distally, and opercular notch with concave lateral margins but occupying 56% of opercula (fig. 63).

DISTRIBUTION: Types are known only from Arizona (certainly not Arkansas) with no locality recorded.

REMARKS: The above diagnoses and descriptions are based on Kraepelin 's 1899 descriptions, pages 242 and 243, and figures 20a and 20b, and descriptive notes, computations, and illustrations of the types, made by the senior author in the late 1960's. Until additional specimens of this species have been collected , there will continue to be questions concerning this species. Why are the male and female types in the ZSM when Kraepelin recorded them in the Simon collection ? Where did the so labeled 22 paratypes come from since Kraepelin did not record them? Finally, where in Arizona is the species located? Muma (1970) erred in stating that the female in the ZSM was a specimen of Eremorhax formidabilis (Simon). He further erred in refering to an "abortive setal socket" on the male in the Simon collection and in stating that the specimens in the Simon collection agreed with Kraepelin's (1899) description.

Figures 61 to 63. Eremobatcs affinis (Kraepclin). 61. Ectal view left chelicera of holotype. 62. Ectal view of right chelicera of male paratype. 63. Ventral view of opercula of female paralype. Redrawn from Brookhart and Muma (1988).

DISTRIBUTION:

PUBLISHED RECORds:

nOTES:


 



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   
   
 



THE UNAUTHORIZED COPYING, DISPLAYING OR OTHER USE OF PHOTOGRAPHS OR OTHER CONTENT  FROM THIS SITE IS ILLLEGAL. 
Copyright 2005-2006.  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 our express permission or the express permission of the photographer(s),  artist(s), or author(s).  For permission, please submit your request to wsavary@yahoo.com.