Paecilaemella, ROEWER, 1925 TRANSL.

Medrano, Miguel, Kury, Adriano Brilhante & Mendes, Amanda Cruz, 2022, Morphology-based cladistics splinters the century-old dichotomy of the pied harvestmen (Arachnida: Gonyleptoidea: Cosmetidae), Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 195, pp. 585-672 : 617-618

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.1093/zoolinnean/zlab043
publication LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:pub:1C89556A-12CB-43B7-9B49-E02EFF1543D3
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6597966
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CA878C-FF95-FFFB-FCB1-F9CCFE202771
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Paecilaemella
status

Treatment

PAECILAEMELLA ROEWER, 1925 TRANSL. View in CoL NOV.

Paecilaemella Roewer, 1925: 13 View in CoL . Junior subjective synonym of Meterginoides, Roewer, 1912 View in CoL by Goodnight & Goodnight (1942); junior subjective synonym of Paecilaema C.L. Koch, 1839 View in CoL by Goodnight & Goodnight 286, examined by photograph). Guayas: Naranjito [–2.16687°, –79.47997], 1 ♀ (SMF RII 1472/146, holotype of Paecilaema albantica View in CoL , examined by photograph).

Non-type material: Ecuador. Santa Elena: La Rinconada [–1.71333°, –80.79667°, 100 m]), S Aguilar leg., 11.x.2013, 2 ♂ 1 ♀ ( QCAZ AK 389 View Materials ); [–1.70778°, –80.79667°, 200 m], A Calle leg., 12.x.2013, 1 ♂ 1 ♀ ( QCAZ AK 390 View Materials ) .

Remarks: Kury & Medrano (2018) recently revalidated the genus Paecilaemella from the synonymy with Paecilaema (here considered as Cosmetinae s.s.) and restored the combination Paecilaemella festae Roewer, 1925 from Paecilaema festivum Kury, 2003 (change in specific epithet is because the new combination rejects the homonymy with Paecilaema festae Roewer, 1925 ). It is interesting to note that P. albantica was described by Roewer (1947) as congeneric of P.festae [situation changed by the extensive synonymies proposed by Goodnight & Goodnight (1953)]. The cladistic analysis, here presented, agrees with the vision of Roewer that those species are part of the same group; however, a detailed study of the Flirteinae subfam. nov. is necessary because of the lack of description of genital morphology in several species.

(1953: 54); synonymy rejected by Kury & Medrano (2018: 210). Type-species by monotypy: Paecilaemella festae Roewer, 1925 .