The Arachnid Order Solifugae



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









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





Eremobates angustus Muma 1951

Eremobates angustus Muma, 1951: 80-82, figs 127-133Adobe PDF icon; Muma, 1962: 6; Muma, 1970a: 25Adobe PDF icon; Muma, 1976: 17; Rowland and Reddell, 1976: 8; Brookhart and Brookhart, 2006: 305Adobe PDF icon.

HOLOTYPE: United States: Arizona: Santa Cruz County -  Madera Canyon, Santa Rita Mountains, 16 July 1940 (Gertsch and Hook), male (holotype), (AMNH). 

Muma, 1951: 80-82, figs 127-133.

MALES: Total length, 19.0 to 25.0 mm.





5.6-5.9 mm.

2.8-3.1 mm.







1st legs



4th legs



Holotype, larger measurements.

Coloration and markings similar to those of pallipes (Say) except the dusky band on the anterior margin of the propeltidium often extends behind the eye tubercle and down the lateral margins.
Structure similar to that of pallipes  except in the following characters. Movable finger with the anterior tooth low, flattened, flanged ectally, and occurring near the middle of the length of the finger, and the mesal setae plumose on the basal half of the finger, and simple on the distal half. Flagellum complex with the basal plumose setae only weakly curved and lying nearly parallel with the mesal groove. Mesal groove not distinctly enlarged at the base. Metatarsus of palpus without a mesoventral scopula.
Propeltidium wider than long by a ratio of 1 to 1.7. Metatarsus of palpus 2.6 times longer than tarsus.

FEMALES: Total length, 26.0 to 28.0 mm.





5.4- 6.2 mm.

2.5-3.0 mm.


2.8- 2.9





1st legs



4th legs



Allotype, smaller measurements.

Coloration and markings in alcohol essentially the same as in the male.
Structure the same as in pallipes except that the intermediate teeth behind the principal tooth on the fixed finger commonly are two in number, there is no scopula on the metatarsus of the palpus, and the opercula on the genital segment of the abdomen are significantly different as shown in figure 133.

FIGS. 125-133. Eremobates angustus Muma. Redrawn from Muma (1951). 127. Ectal view of right male chelicera. 128. Dorsal view of fixed finger of right male chelicera. 129. Mesal view of right male chelicera. 130. Mesoventral view of apical segments of left male palpus. 131. Ectal view of right female chelicera. 132. Mesal view of right female chelicera. 133. Ventral view of female genital opercula.

DISTRIBUTION: United States: Arizona and Texas.  Muma (1951) recorded specimens from Arizona and Texas. Muma (1962) reported a second record for Texas.  Muma (1976) reported that the species was known from about 10 records, mostly from Arizona.  Brookhart and Brookhart (2006) reported that the species is known from  numerous males and females and reported the range as Arizona and Texas.

PUBLISHED RECORDS: United States: Arizona: Santa Cruz County -  Madera Canyon, Santa Rita Mountains, 16 July 1940 (Gertsch and Hook), female (allotype), male (paratype), (AMNH);  Madera Canyon, north slope, Santa Rita Mountains, [date?] (F. Werner and W. Nutting), three males, one female; Ramsay Canyon, Huachuca Mountains, 10-15 July  1941 (A. B. Klots), three males, one female; Oslar, Huachuca Mountains, 19 August 1903 (collector?), one female;  Garden Canyon, north slope of Huachuca Mountains, 26 July 1949 (F. Werner and W. Nutting), two males, one female; Patagonia Mountains on Lochiel Road, 28 July 1948 [collector?], one female. Texas: Sutton County - Sonora, April 24, 1932, one female (Bishopp); Terrell County - 13 miles south of Sheffield on Stockton Plateau ; [date?] (W. W. Milstead), [specimen?][repository?]; Washington County - Washington, August 8, 1932, one male, two females.

NOTES: Muma (1951) noted that females of this species agree rather closely with Roewer's Eremostata dinamita from  Mexico in general description and opercular form, but have a dentition that differs widely from Roewer's figure of the dentition pattern.  These differences and the great distance separating the collection localities of the two species prompted Muma to recognize the species as distinct. Males of this species, Muma (ibid.) noted, agree closely in dentition pattern with those in Roewer's figure of Eremoseta titschacki Roewer, but several differences are to be found in Roewer's description and figure. Muma pointed out that Roewer mentions no mesal groove of the fixed finger for titschacki, does not describe or figure a low ridge replacing the anterior tooth of the movable finger, and figures all of the mesal setae of the movable finger as plumose.Male  and female paratypes also in the Museum of Comparative Zoology and the United States National Museum.  In a key to members of the angustus group, Muma (1951) characterized this species as lacking a scopula, and used that attribute to separate it from Eremobates cruzi, which has a scopula of 30 to 40 papillae on the metatarsus of each palpus.  Muma (1970) repeated the diagnosis, again noting that males of this species are distinguished from 'the closely related' Eremobates cruzi Muma by the lack of a scopula and minor differences in the cheliceral profile.  Females, he noted, can be identified by the opercular structure. Muma (1976) included this species in an annotated list of Western Hemisphere Solpugida.























































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