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,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Eremobates icenogelei Brookhart and Cushing 2004

Eremobates icenoglei ►Brookhart and Cushing 2004: 300, figs 4-9; ►Brookhart and Brookhart 2006: 313.

HOLOTYPE: UNITED STATES: California: Riverside County - 29 August 1996 (Wendell Icenogle), in wet pit-fall trap, 1 ♂ (holotype); Winchester (3342'N, 11705'W).  Deposited in DMNS.

Original description:
Brookhart and Cushing, 2004: 300, figs 4-9:

Males: Coloration overall dark to dusky yellow, abdominal tergites dusky, appendages dusky yellow with palpal metatarsus and the tibia-femora joint area dusky violet-brown, propeltidium dusky purple on anterior edge and top lateral one third (Fig 4).
Fixed finger of chelicera with little or no crimping, fondal notch longer than wide; width of FF 80% the width of FN; MF with large primary tooth, and a ridge that is slightly elevated anteriorly instead of intermediate and anterior teeth, MST intermediate in size (Fig. 56). Four stiletto shaped ctenidia on first post-spiracular sternite extending approximately half the length of the sternite (Fig. 7); no palpal papillae.
Male holotype:
Total length 19.0, chelicera length 4.8, chelicera width 2.2, propeltidium length 2.6, propeltidium width 3.5, palpus length 16.0, first leg length 16.0, fourth leg length 23.0.
Ratios: A/CP 6.82, CL/CW 2.20, FL/FW 1.40, WFF/FW 1.20, CW/WFF 4.23. Male paratypes (5): Total length 18.024.0, chelicera length 5.506.92, chelicera width 4.46.4, propeltidium length 2.323.20, propeltidium width 3.24.0, palpus length 14.017.0, first leg length 10.014.0, fourth leg length 17.024.0. Ratios: A/CP 5.526.80, CL/CW 1.732.20, FL/FW 1.171.44, FW/FFW 2.293.75, CW/WFF 4.235.75.
Female:
Coloration the same as male. Chelicera typical of species; MF with posterior IT separate from PT, MST indistinct to absent (Fig. 8), no papillae on metatarsus of palpus; 23 tiny hairlike ctenidia were present on two specimens, the rest had none. Genital operculum with longer, broad arms, a long, slightly recurved medial surface ending in a point, wing short to absent, and posterior edge truncated (Fig. 9). Female (allotype): Total length 19.0, chelicera length 6.2, chelicera width 2.8, propeltidium length 2.0, propeltidium width 3.6, palpus length 12.0, first leg length 9.0, fourth leg length 17.5. Ratios: A/CP 4.70, CL/CW 2.20, PL/PW 0.55, GOL/GOW 0.82. Female paratypes (5): Total length 17.026.0, chelicera length 4.87.6, chelicera width 1.83.4, propeltidium length 2.03.0, propeltidium width 3.55.0, palpus length 12.016.0, first leg length 9.013.0, fourth leg length 16.022.0. Ratios: A/CP 4.705.66. CL/CW 2.202.67, PL/PW 0.480.63, GOL/GOW 0.740.82.


 

Figures 49.Eremobates icenoglei.  4. Dorsal view male propeltidium. 5. Ectal view male right chelicera. 6. Mesal view male right chelicera. 7. Ventral view male ctenidia. 8. Ectal view female right chelicera. 9. Ventral view female genital operculum. Scale lines = 1 mm.  Redrawn from Brookhart and Cushing, (2004).

SUBSEQUENT ACCOUNTS: See "NOTES" below.

DISTRIBUTION: UNITED STATES: California: Riverside County, vicinity of Winchester.

PUBLISHED RECORds: From Brookhart and Cushing (2004): UNITED STATES: California: Riverside County - 22 Aug 1966 (Wendell Icenogle), in wet pit-fall trap, 1 ♀ (allotype); Winchester (3342'N, 11705'W), 29 August 196723 August 1996, in wet pit-fall traps, 5 ♂, 5 ♀ (paratypes), 29 August 1967 (♂, 3♀), 16 September 1967 (2 ); 24 September 1968 (), 11 August 1973 (3 ♂), 3 September 1973 (3 ), 4 September 1973 (♀), 8 August 1981 (4 ), 17 August 1987 (3 ), 16 August 1988 (2 ), 1 August 1996 (2 ), 23 August 1996 (). All collected by Wendell Icenogle. Types and paratypes in DMNH.

nOTES: Brookhart and Cushing (2004) commented that Eremobates icenoglei appears most closely related to E. zinni but is separated from it and others of the scaber group by absence of AT on male MF, a fond that is noticeably longer than wide, and a thickened FF. They noted that the female genital operculum is distinctive (see Fig. 9, above), and that Eremobates icenoglei appears to be restricted to the Coastal Chaparral habitat.  Brookhart and Brookhart (2006) included the species in an annotated checklist of continental North American Solifugae.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   
   
 


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.