Brookhart and Muma 1988:22-23.
Figures 61 to
Kraepelin 1899, p. 242. (male and female)
Kraepelin 1901, p. 128 (not
Muma, 1951, p. 65); Muma, 1970, p. 14. (male and female)
Eremoperna affinis (Kraepelin),
Roewer, 1934, p.
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.
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.
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).
Types are known
from Arizona (certainly
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
to be questions
concerning this species.
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.
Redrawn from Brookhart and Muma (1988).
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