Charinus camachoi (González-Sponga, 1998)

Fig. 27; Table 2

Charinides camachoi González-Sponga, 1998: 2–3, figs 1–8, map 1.

Charinus camachoi – Harvey 2003: 5. — Miranda & Giupponi 2011: 66, fig. 13. — Jocqué & Giupponi 2012: 55. — Vasconcelos et al. 2013: 497. — Miranda et al. 2016c: 31.

Diagnosis

Based on the description of González-Sponga (1998), this species may be separated from other Charinus in Amazonia and northern South America by means of the following combination of characters: median eyes and median ocular tubercle absent; lateral eyes well developed; anterior margin of carapace straight with six setae; sternum with single platelets, not pairs of platelets; males with secondary sexual dimorphism; pedipalp femur with three dorsal spines and three ventral spines; pedipalp patella with four dorsal spines and two ventral spines; pedipalp tibia with two dorsal spines; pedipalp tarsus with two spines, proximal spine one-fifth length of distal spine and distal spine half length of article; tibia of leg I with 22 or 23 articles, tarsus I with 36–38 articles; first tarsal article twice as long as second article; leg IV basitibia with two pseudo-articles; trichobothrium bc situated closer to sbf than to bf.

Etymology

Patronym honoring Carlos Camacho (González-Sponga, 1998).

Type material

Holotype VENEZUELA • ♂; Mérida, Sucre, Chiguará, Hacienda Buruquel; [08°29′26″ N, 71°32′06″ W]; 1000 m a.s.l.; 10 Jan. 1988; A.R. Delgado de González and M.A. González-Sponga leg.; MIZA [not examined].

Paratype VENEZUELA • 1 ♀; same collection data as for holotype; MIZA [not examined] .

Measurements

See Table 2.

Distribution

Known only from the type locality.

Natural history

According to González-Sponga (1998), C. camachoi inhabits the leaflitter and cracks in slopes produced by erosion in a cloudy evergreen forest, interspersed with Coffea arabica Linnaeus, 1753, Erythrina Linnaeus, 1753, and Musa Linnaeus, 1753 .

Remarks

González-Sponga (1998: 3) described leg IV of C. camachoi as “with three segments” but did not differentiate the basitibia and distitibia, hence the two proximal segments must be the basitibia and the third, the distitibia. The basitibia of leg IV should be considered to consist of two pseudo-articles in this species, contrary to González-Sponga (1998).