taxonID	type	description	language	source
C36D9C73FFDDCD405DDFFE8D492FFBAC.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis. Tetebius can be distinguished from most genera of Biantinae by the absence of the typical biantid pedipalp shape with a thin and generally unarmed femur (e. g., Martens 1978, fig. 2). By contrast, Tetebius exhibits a robust, curved, and armed femur, a feature shared with Hirstienus Roewer, 1949, Hovanoceros Lawrence, 1959, and Anaceros Lawrence, 1959. However, Tetebius can be separated from those genera by a male pedipalp ventrally concave (i. e., strongly arched). The male genital morphology is still unknown to Hirstienus and Anaceros avoiding comparisons, but it is known to one undetermined species of Hovanoceros (see Kury & Pérez-González 2015). In this sense, Tetebius can separate from Hovanoceros by the presence of a longitudinal row of macrosetae at the sides of the pars distalis (Figs 4 B – D; 9 B – H), which is more inflated. Also, Tetebius can be differentiated from Hovanoceros by the presence of a pair of setae on the base of the lamina apicalis (Figs 4 B – D; 9 B – H). Lastly, in Tetebius, conductors are distally thin, apically pointed, and not as wide as in Hovanoceros (Figs 4 B – C; 9 B – C, E – F vs. fig. 2 in Kury & Pérez-González 2015).	en	Mamani, Vanesa, Pérez-González, Abel (2025): Redescription of Tetebius latibunus as a new senior synonym of Malgaceros boviceps (Opiliones: Laniatores: Biantidae). Zootaxa 5570 (2): 325-343, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5570.2.5, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5570.2.5
C36D9C73FFDDCD405DDFFE8D492FFBAC.taxon	discussion	Remark. The limits among Anaceros, Hovanoceros, Hirstienus, and Tetebius are not well defined, and the male genitalia morphology of Anaceros and Hirstienus remains unknown. Further studies are necessary to clarify the limits and validity of those genera.	en	Mamani, Vanesa, Pérez-González, Abel (2025): Redescription of Tetebius latibunus as a new senior synonym of Malgaceros boviceps (Opiliones: Laniatores: Biantidae). Zootaxa 5570 (2): 325-343, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5570.2.5, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5570.2.5
C36D9C73FFDDCD405DDFFE8D492FFBAC.taxon	type_taxon	Type species. Tetebius latibunus Roewer, 1949 (by original designation). Included species. Monotypic.	en	Mamani, Vanesa, Pérez-González, Abel (2025): Redescription of Tetebius latibunus as a new senior synonym of Malgaceros boviceps (Opiliones: Laniatores: Biantidae). Zootaxa 5570 (2): 325-343, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5570.2.5, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5570.2.5
C36D9C73FFDDCD4F5DDFFBF9499DFEC8.taxon	description	(Figs 1; 3 – 10, Table 1)	en	Mamani, Vanesa, Pérez-González, Abel (2025): Redescription of Tetebius latibunus as a new senior synonym of Malgaceros boviceps (Opiliones: Laniatores: Biantidae). Zootaxa 5570 (2): 325-343, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5570.2.5, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5570.2.5
C36D9C73FFDDCD4F5DDFFBF9499DFEC8.taxon	materials_examined	Type material. Tetebius latibunus, ♂ holotype (SMF 9909102, previously cataloged as RII / 1902 / 230, examined), MOZAMBIQUE, Teté (Fig. 2) (spurious locality see further considerations). Malgaceros boviceps, 3 ♂, 1 ♀ syntypes (MNHN, destroyed), MADAGASCAR, Sambirano, Nosy Be, Lokobe, Oct. 1947, J. Millot, under stones.	en	Mamani, Vanesa, Pérez-González, Abel (2025): Redescription of Tetebius latibunus as a new senior synonym of Malgaceros boviceps (Opiliones: Laniatores: Biantidae). Zootaxa 5570 (2): 325-343, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5570.2.5, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5570.2.5
C36D9C73FFDDCD4F5DDFFBF9499DFEC8.taxon	discussion	Remark: the syntypes of Malgaceros boviceps were destroyed in the tragic fire that occurred in the MNRJ in 2018 (A. B. Kury pers. comm.). Other material examined. 2 major ♂ (1 photo voucher), 3 minor ♂ (1 photo voucher) (CASENT 9069465), MADAGASCAR, Antsiranana, Nosy Be, Réserve Naturelle Intégrale de Lokobe, 6.3 km 112 ° ESE Hellville, - 13.41944 °; 48.33111 °, 30 m a. s. l., rainforest, EC 19 sifted Litter, 19 – 24 Mar 2001, coll. B. L. Fisher et al., collection code: BLF 3422. 1 major ♂, 1 minor ♂ (MACN-Ar 45417) with the same data as for preceding. 1 major ♂ (SEM voucher) (MACN-Ar 45346) with the same data as for preceding. 2 minor ♂, 9 ♀ (1 photo voucher) (CASENT 9069463), MADAGASCAR, Antsiranana, Nosy Be, Réserve Naturelle Intégrale de Lokobe, 6.3 km 112 ° ESE Hellville, - 13.41944 °; 48.33111 °, 30 m a. s. l., rainforest, EC 19 sifted Litter, 19 – 24 Mar 2001, coll. B. L. Fisher et al., collection code: BLF 3422. 1 ♀ (MACN-Ar 45361) with the same data as for preceding. 1 minor ♂ (CASENT 9069464), MADAGASCAR, Antsiranana, Nosy Be, Réserve Naturelle Intégrale de Lokobe, 6.3 km 112 ° ESE Hellville, - 13.41944 °; 48.33111 °, 30 m a. s. l., rainforest, EC 27 pitfall trap, 19 – 24 Mar 2001, coll. B. L. Fisher et al., collection code: BLF 3418.	en	Mamani, Vanesa, Pérez-González, Abel (2025): Redescription of Tetebius latibunus as a new senior synonym of Malgaceros boviceps (Opiliones: Laniatores: Biantidae). Zootaxa 5570 (2): 325-343, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5570.2.5, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5570.2.5
C36D9C73FFDDCD4F5DDFFBF9499DFEC8.taxon	description	Redescription. Minor male holotype (SMF 9909102, formerly RII / 1902 / 230). Body measurements: Total body length 1.46, carapace length 0.50, scutum magnum length 1.15, carapace maximum width 0.86, abdominal scutum maximum width 0.99. Appendage measurements in Table 1. Dorsum: Outline hourglass-shaped with Eta (η) shape, with a slightly accentuated constriction posterior to eye level (Figs 1 A; 3 A). Carapace coarsely granulated, wider than long (Figs 1 A; 3 A), with a marked and rounded frontal hump (Fig. 1 C); anterior border of carapace with three granules on each side (Fig. 3 A). Cheliceral sockets not marked (Figs 1 A; 3 A). Eyes separated and located on the sides of a wide and low ocularium (Figs 1 A, C; 3 A); ocularium shorter than the height of the abdominal scutum and occupies the posterior region of the carapace up to the frontal hump (Fig. 1 C). Sulcus I deep and well-marked, in dorsal view curved to anterior body region (Figs 1 A; 3 A). Mesotergal areas I – IV granulated and not completely defined; sulci II – IV shallow and limited to the medial region (Figs 1 A; 3 A). Mesotergal area I with larger medial granules (Figs 1 A; 3 A); mesotergal area II with a medial row of larger granules and one medial tubercle; mesotergal areas III – IV with two medial tubercles; tubercles of mesotergal area IV more separated from each other than tubercles of mesotergal area III (Figs 1 A; 3 A). Mesotergal area V granulated with one medial tubercle (Figs 1 A; 3 A). Lateral margins of scutum magnum with rows of granules (Fig. 3 A). Free tergites granulated; free tergites I – III with a posterior row of larger granules and three medial setiferous tubercles (Fig. 3 A). Venter: Without any conspicuous armature (Fig. 1 B); coxa I with setiferous granules; anteroposterior borders of coxa III with a row of strong granules connecting with coxae II and IV, respectively (Fig. 1 B); coxa IV with lateral margin granulated (Fig. 1 B); anal operculum with several conspicuous granules (Fig. 1 B). Spiracles concealed by a bridge-like projection from distal coxa IV connecting to the posterior margin of the stigmatic area (Fig. 1 B). Chelicerae: Basichelicerite with a marked bulla and two dorsal setiferous granules on the proximal margin (Fig. 3 A, E). Cheliceral hand with an ectal concavity, sparse setae and three frontal rounded setiferous tubercles (Fig. 3 E – F). Fixed finger proximally with one large triangular tooth followed by smaller teeth (Fig. 3 F). Pedipalps: Coxa proximally with two dorsomesal granules and one dorsoectal granule (Fig. 3 A). Femur curved; ventral surface with two large proximal spines, medially with one small mesal spine and one small ectal setiferous tubercle (Fig. 3 B – D). Patella distally with a small mesal spine (Fig. 3 B). Tibia ventrally with two short mesal spines and three large ectal spines (Fig. 3 B – C). Tarsus shorter than tibia; ventral surface with two ectal spines and two mesal spines (Fig. 3 B – C). Legs: Tarsi III and IV with a dense scopula. Tarsal formula: 3 (2): 4 (3): 5: 5. Color (specimen preserved in 80 % ethanol): Body completely light yellow (Fig. 1 A – C). Genitalia: Penis with distinguishable limits between pars basalis and pars distalis (Fig. 4 A). Pars basalis tubular, pars distalis slightly swollen at the glans penis level (Fig. 4 A). Apical edge laminar (i. e., dorsoventrally flat) with a well-defined basal constriction and a broadened, rounded, and ventrally concave edge forming a lamina apicalis (Fig. 4 A – D). Pars distalis with 17 spatula-shaped macrosetae: basally with a lateral row of five (right) and six (left) macrosetae (Fig. 4 A, C), lamina apicalis with one basal pair of macrosetae and two distal pairs of macrosetae (Fig. 4 B – D). Capsula externa in the everted state inflated with two elongated and curl apically titillators covered by digitiform projections on the inner surface (Fig. 4 B – C). Capsula interna formed by two laminar conductors broadened ventrally and apically pointed, and one laminar style apically with a pointed ventral projection (Fig. 4 C). Major male (CASENT 9069465). Body measurements: Total body length 1.57, carapace length 0.62, scutum magnum length 1.31, carapace maximum width 1.00, abdominal scutum maximum width 1.11. Appendage measurements in Table 1. Dorsum: Outline hourglass-shaped with Eta (η) shape, with a slightly accentuated constriction posterior to eye level (Figs 5 A; 6 A). Carapace coarsely granulated, wider than long; frontal hump well-marked, rounded, and granulated; anterior border straight with two granules on each lateral margin (Fig. 6 A). Cheliceral sockets not marked (Figs 5 A; 6 A). Eyes separated, located at the base of a wide and high ocularium, which exceeds the height of the abdominal scutum (Figs 5 C; 6 D); ocularium occupies the posterior region of the carapace up to the area behind the frontal hump (Figs 5 A, C; 6 A, D). Mesotergal areas coarsely granulated (Fig. 6 A, D). Mesotergal areas I – IV not well defined; sulci II – IV shallow and limited to the medial region (Figs 5 A, C; 6 A, D). Mesotergal area I with two medial setiferous granules; mesotergal area II with a medial row of setiferous granules and one medial setiferous tubercle; mesotergal areas III – IV with a row of setiferous granules and two medial setiferous tubercles; tubercles in area IV more separated and slightly larger than those in area III (Figs 5 A; 6 A, D). Mesotergal area V with a posterior row of setiferous granules and a medial setiferous tubercle (Fig. 6 A, D). Lateral margins of abdominal scutum with irregular longitudinal rows of granules (Fig. 6 A, D). Ozopore with an oval and narrow orifice with a descending channel that extends toward the posterior region (Fig. 6 D – E). Free tergites granulated, with a posterior row of setiferous granules and three medial setiferous tubercles (Fig. 6 A, D). Venter: Coxae I – II with setiferous granules (Figs 5 B; 6 B – C); anteroposterior borders of coxa III with a row of strong granules connecting with coxae II and IV, respectively; posterior border of the spiracular area and free sternites I – V with a row of setiferous granules; anal operculum with conspicuous setiferous granules (Fig. 6 B, D). Spiracles concealed by a bridge-like projection from distal coxa IV connecting to the posterior margin of the stigmatic area (Fig. 6 B – C). Chelicerae: Basichelicerite with an elongated bulla and three dorsal setiferous granules on the proximal margin (Figs 6 A; 7 E – F). Cheliceral hand with an ectal concavity, sparse frontal setae, prominent proximal rounded setiferous granules, and three distal setiferous tubercles: two large frontal and one smaller ectal (Fig. 7 E – G). Fixed finger with a protuberance; movable finger with two prominent teeth continued by small teeth (Fig. 7 F – G). Pedipalps: Coxa dorsoproximally with one ectal and two mesal tubercles; ventral surface with three small tubercles (Fig. 6 A – B). Trochanter with one dorsal tubercle and one ventral setiferous granule (Fig. 7 A). Femur strongly curved; ventrally with two large proximal spines: proximal spine with a rectangular socket and long seta; distal spine with a curved and pointed socket and short seta (Fig. 7 A – B); ventromedially with one small and rounded mesal spine and one ectal rounded granule (Fig. 7 A – B). Patella distally with a small spine (Fig. 7 A). Tibia ventrally with two short mesal spines: medial with conical socket and long subapical seta, distal with short socket and apical seta (Fig. 7 A); three large ectal spines: proximal with thickened and short socket; medial and distal with a narrow and elongated socket and long subapical seta (Fig. 7 B). Tarsus shorter than tibia, ventrally with two ectal and mesal spines, proximal spines with longer sockets (Fig. 7 A – B). Spines distally with sparse microtrichia (Fig. 7 C – D). Legs: unarmed (Fig. 8 A – D). Tarsi III – IV with a dense scopula (Fig. 8 E – F). Tarsal formula: 3 (2): 4 (3): 5: 5. Color (specimen preserved in 80 % ethanol): Body yellowish-brown, with dark brown reticulations on pedipalps, chelicerae, legs, and carapace (Fig. 5 A – B). Mesotergal areas, free tergites, and free sternites dark brown (Fig. 5 A – C). Genitalia: Penis with distinguishable limits between pars basalis and pars distalis (Fig. 9 A). Pars basalis tubular; pars distalis slightly swollen (Fig. 9 A – B, D, F, H). Apical edge laminar (i. e., flattened dorsoventrally) with a well-defined basal constriction and a broadened, rounded, and ventrally concave edge forming a lamina apicalis (Fig. 9 A – D, F – H). Pars distalis with 18 spatula-shaped macrosetae: basally with a lateral row of six macrosetae (Fig. 9 B, D, F, H), lamina apicalis with one basal pair of macrosetae and two subapical pairs of macrosetae (Fig. 9 B – H). Capsula externa with two titillators covered by digitiform projections on the inner surface (Fig. 9 A – B, E – H). Capsula interna formed by two laminar conductors broadened ventrally and apically pointed and one laminar style apically with a pointed ventral projection (Fig. 9 B, E, F). Female (CASENT 9069463). Body measurements: Total body length 1.55, carapace length 0.51, scutum magnum length 1.15, maximum carapace width 0.83, maximum abdominal scutum width 1.03. Appendage measurements in Table 1. Female resembles both minor and major males in the armature of the scutum magnum but with lower tubercles on the abdominal scutum and free tergites. Female differs from males by having less development chelicerae (Fig. 10 A vs. Fig. 10 B – D), and smaller ocularium (Fig. 10 E vs. Fig. 10 F – H). Additionally, female differs by having thinner pedipalps with a less pronounced curvature in the femur (Fig. 10 E vs. Fig. 10 F – H). Tarsal formula 3 (2): 4 (3): 5: 5.	en	Mamani, Vanesa, Pérez-González, Abel (2025): Redescription of Tetebius latibunus as a new senior synonym of Malgaceros boviceps (Opiliones: Laniatores: Biantidae). Zootaxa 5570 (2): 325-343, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5570.2.5, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5570.2.5
C36D9C73FFDDCD4F5DDFFBF9499DFEC8.taxon	distribution	Distribution: Lokobe Strict Nature Reserve, Nosy Be, Diana, Madagascar (Fig. 11). Spurious record in Mozambique, Tete (see further considerations).	en	Mamani, Vanesa, Pérez-González, Abel (2025): Redescription of Tetebius latibunus as a new senior synonym of Malgaceros boviceps (Opiliones: Laniatores: Biantidae). Zootaxa 5570 (2): 325-343, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5570.2.5, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5570.2.5
