Strotarchus tamaulipas, Bonaldo, Alexandre B., Saturnino, Regiane, Ramírez, Martín J. & Brescovit, Antonio D., 2012
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.214492 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6171984 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03ABF817-8B45-E50E-E9BC-07E2FCB13049 |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Strotarchus tamaulipas |
status |
sp. nov. |
Strotarchus tamaulipas new species
Figs. 8 View FIGURES 8 – 15 , 27 View FIGURES 24 – 32 , 50−52 View FIGURES 48 – 53 , 81−84 View FIGURES 81 – 88
Type material. Male holotype and four male paratypes from Gomez Farias (ravine litter, 300m.) [93º9'W, 23º3'N], Tamaulipas , Mexico, Jun. 0 6, 1983, S. & J. Peck coll. deposited in AMNH (two males), MPEG 19115 (1 male), IBSP 43402 (1 male); female paratype from Cueva del Abra [El Abra, 98º58.8'W, 23º6.6'N], Tamaulipas , Mexico, Jun. 1964, T. Raines coll. ( AMNH).
Etymology. The specific name is a noun in apposition taken from the type locality.
Diagnosis. Males of Strotarchus tamaulipas n. sp. resemble those of S. tropicus by the basal embolar fold disposed parallel in relation to the tegulum, and by the tegular apophysis inserted retrobasally. They differ by the long palpal tibia, smooth base of the embolus and by the entire, lamellar embolar process ( Figs. 81, 82 View FIGURES 81 – 88 ). Females can be distinguished from those of S. monasticus n. sp. and the other species with convergent copulatory ducts by the large, sub-oval atrium with procurved posterior margin, without lateral projections ( Figs. 83, 84 View FIGURES 81 – 88 ).
Description. Male (Holotype). Carapace orange, with darker cephalic area, thoracic groove brown. Chelicerae, endites and labium red brown. Sternum yellow with brown margins. Legs orange. Abdomen light gray, spinnerets orange. Total length 7.40. Carapace 3.20 long, 2.50 wide. Eye diameters: AME 0.20, ALE 0.20, PME 0.20, PLE 0.18. Chelicerae with 3 promarginal teeth, the median largest, and 2 retromarginal teeth, separated by twice their width. Leg measurements: femur I 3.70/ II 3.40/ III 2.90/ IV 3.60. Leg spination: I—femur d1-1-1, p0-1-1-1, r0-1-1-1; tibia d0, p1-1-0, r1-1-0, v2-2 -0; metatarsus d0, p0-1-1, r0-1-1, v2-2 - 1m. II—femur d1-1-1, p0-1-1-1, r0- 1-1-1; tibia d0, p1-1-0, r1-1-0, v2-2 -0; metatarsus d0, p0-1-1, r0-1-1, v2-2 - 1m. III—femur d1-1-1, p1-1-1, r1-1-1; tibia d0-1-0, p1-1-0, r1-1-0, v2-2 -0; metatarsus d0-1-0, p1-1-2, r1-1-2, v2-2 - 1m. IV—femur d1-1-1, p1-1-1, r0-0-1; tibia d0, p1-1-0, r1-1-0, v2-2 -0; metatarsus d0, p1-1-2, r1-1-2, v2-2 - 1m. Palpal tibiae thin, almost as long as cymbium (0.8 times); RTA sub-triangular with a rounded tip; ppRTA small, rounded; laRTA absent. Tegulum sub-oval, proximal fold of reservoir ventrally oriented; TA egg-shaped; BEF restricted to retrolateral side of bulbus, EP small, unsclerotised, rectangular; EA arising retrolaterally ( Figs. 81, 82 View FIGURES 81 – 88 ).
Female (Paratype). Coloration as in male. Total length 7.20. Carapace 2.80 long, 2.10. Eye diameters: AME 0.16, ALE 0.18, PME 0.16, PLE 0.20. Chelicerae as in male. Leg measurements: femur I 3.60/ II absent/ III 2.70/ IV 3.40. Leg spination: I—femur d1-1-1, p0-1-1-1, r0-1-0; tibia d0, p1-1-0, r1-1-0, v2-2 -0; metatarsus d0, p1-1-1, r0-1-1, v2-2 - 1m. II—femur - absent. III—femur d1-1-1, p0-1-1-1, r0-1-1; tibia d0-1-0, p1-1-0, r1-1-2, v2-2 -1r; metatarsus d0-1-0, p1-1-2, r1-1-2, v2-2 - 1m. IV—femur d1-1-1, p0-1-1, r0-0-1; tibia d0, p1-1-0, r1-1-0, v2-2 -2; metatarsus d0-1-1, p1-1-2, r1-1-2, v2-2 - 1m. Epigynum: AP small, truncated posteriorly, median slit without lateral notches, rounded anteriorly. CD with few helicoid folds; GK small, rounded, base slightly constricted, anteriorly oriented; SS enlarged posteriorly, gently curved; spermathecae continuous with SS ( Figs. 83, 84 View FIGURES 81 – 88 ).
Variation. Six males: total length 7.40−8.80; carapace 3.00−4.40; femur I 3.50−4.30.
Distribution. Mexico.
Other material examined. MEXICO. Tamaulipas , Gomez Farias (ravine litter, 300m.) [93º9'W, 23º3'N], 1 male, Jun. 6, 1983, S. & J. Peck coll. ( SEM preparation, AMNH).
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |