|
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
|
Eremobates affinis (Kraepelin 1899) Eremobates HOLOTYPE: United States. Original description:
SUBSEQUENT
ACCOUNTS: Eremobates affinis (Kraepelin)Figures 61 to 63 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). DIS TRIBUTION: 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.
gures 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:
|
|||||
|
||||||
