Karos, DEPRESSUS GOODNIGHT & GOODNIGHT, 1971, : Goodnight & Goodnight, 1971

Cruz-López, Jesús A. & Francke, Oscar F., 2015, Cladistic analysis and taxonomic revision of the genus Karos Goodnight & Goodnight, 1944 (Opiliones, Laniatores, Stygnopsidae), Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 175 (4), pp. 827-891 : 880-881

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.1111/zoj.12299
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CA87F9-A260-FF9A-FC87-FD8DC11BF8A3
treatment provided by	Felipe
scientific name	Karos
status

Treatment

‘ KAROS View in CoL ’ DEPRESSUS GOODNIGHT & GOODNIGHT, 1971

INCERTAE SEDIS

( FIG. 56 View Figure 56 )

Karos depressus Goodnight & Goodnight, 1971: 34 View in CoL , figs 4, 5; Rambla & Juberthie, 1994: 218: Kury & Cokendolpher, 2000: 155; Kury, 2003: 238.

Type locality: MEXICO: Querétaro: Landa de Matamoros, Cueva del Llano de Conejo , 10 km ENE of Xilitla.

Material examined: MEXICO: Querétaro: ♀ paratype [ TMM (3.iv.1969; J. R. Evans)]. Municipio Landa de Matamoros, Cueva del Llano de Conejo , 10 km ENE of Xilitla.

Other material: MEXICO: Querétaro: ♀ holotype [ AMNH (3.iv.1969; J. R. Evans)]. Municipio Landa de Matamoros, Cueva del Llano de Conejo , 10 km ENE of Xilitla, not examined .

Taxonomic accounts: We examined a female paratype ( TMM) and the only other specimen known of this species is the holotype female. The pattern of scutum, ocularium being very low and unarmed, and the shape of the lateral projections of the scutum do not correspond with any of the eight genera treated here. The most similar genus is Monterella in the scutum shape, and in the size and shape of ocularium ( Fig. 56 View Figure 56 ). In addition, we also examined an adult male and female of an undescribed genus and species from locality Hidalgo, Tamaulipas, which appears to be congeneric with Karos depressus , and the male genitalia are quite distinctive. This undescribed genus and species may be related to the clade (( Montabunus + Chapulobunus ) + Monterella ) by the number and position of ventral microsetae. However, these specimens were not included in our cladistic analyses because the material is poorly preserved and we prefer to wait and obtain additional, properly preserved specimens. Thus, until a male topotype of Karos depressus is examined, including the male genitalia, we prefer to assign this species as incertae sedis.