Monomontia neglecta, Schönhofer, 2008

Schönhofer, Axel L., 2008, On harvestmen from the Soutpansberg, South Africa, with description of a new species of Monomontia (Arachnida: Opiliones), African Invertebrates 49 (2), pp. 109-109 : 117-119

Monomontia neglecta sp. n.

Figs 5H, 5I , 6I , 7K–M , 8I–K , 9I–K , 10I–K

Monomontia aquilonaris: Lawrence 1963: 299 (partim).

Monomontia versicolor: Lawrence 1963: 302 (partim).

Etymology: From Latin neglecta (neglected, disregarded). This clearly distinguishable species was overlooked by Lawrence (1963). He first separated smaller specimens from his material but later included them in M. aquilonaris and M. versicolor .

Diagnosis: Conspicuously small, yellow and short-legged Monomontia . Ocularium flat, extended over the front margin of prosoma, rounded at tip ( Fig. 6I ).

Description:

Small body size ( Figs 5H, 5I ); light yellow-brown, dorsal scute densely granulated with two large granules on front margin of carapace; no markings dorsally. Legs short, leg I ( Fig. 7K ): calcaneus of metatarsus more than half the length of astragalus; tarsus longer than metatarsus; femur ventrally with 4 spined tubercles, the second basal one largest, the third smallest. Ocularium ( Fig. 6I ) small, smooth and rounded; only faintly elevated dorsally; drawn out over the front margin of the carapace, eyes small, surrounded by a much larger background of black pigmentation. Chelicera ( Figs 7L, 7M ) with a few ventral granules on segment I, dorsally inflated and ending in a spine; small spines and a large triangular on segment II dorsally; a riffled area is present on ventral article I distal, possibly a stridulatory organ. Palps ( Figs 8I–K ): trochanter with 1 large spine dorsal and ventral; femur dorsal with 3 prominent equally-sized spines and one smaller distal one, ventrally basal spine with three teeth, the middle one largest, medial with 1 spine distally, from this 4 spines distally alternating in size; femur, tibia and tarsus ventrally covered with rounded granules, dorsal smooth. Penis ( Figs 9I–K , 10I–K ) short and stout; almost parallel sided in dorsal view; in lateral view constricted below glans and above the base of truncus; muto bent dorsally (lateral view), forming two circular lamellae diverging disto-laterally, hind wall of muto above these lamellae gradually tapering to a blunt apex (dorsal view); lamellae cinctiform at base broad, forming small medial lobes and large lateral ones, these are long and slightly curved, bent dorsally, apex folded inwards, confined by three large lateral spines and a small one dorsally. Females similar to males but can be distinguished by shorter palps and metatarsus of leg I. Tibia of leg I variable, sometimes with one tubercle ventrally.

Measurements (mm): ơ (n=10),^(n=4), data for ^in parentheses: body size: 1.35– 1.53 (1.37–1.45); leg I: femur: 0.5–0.52 (0.45–0.47), patella: 0.26–0.28 (0.25–0.26), tibia: 0.29–0.31 (0.29–0.3), metatarsus: 0.35–0.37 (0.31–0.32), tarsus: 0.4–0.42 (0.37– 0.4); palpus: femur: 0.53–0.64 (0.49–0.51), patella: 0.33–0.35 (0.28–0.29), tibia: 0.46– 0.62 (0.36–0.37), tarsus: 0.5–0.52 (0.43–0.45)

Holotype: ơ SOUTH AFRICA: Limpopo: Makhado [= Louis Trichardt, 23 ° 02'S: 29 ° 54'E], ii.1960, R.F. Lawrence ( NMSA, 7645); identified in 1963 as M. versicolor .

Paratypes: ^same data as holotype; 9ơ 3^SOUTH AFRICA: Limpopo: Hanglip forest north of Makhado, vi.1961, N. Leleup (NMSA, 19204). R.F. Lawrence identified these specimens in 1963 as M. aquilonaris . Comments: Specimens of this species were included in the descriptions of M. aquilonaris and M. versicolor by Lawrence (1963) but represent no type material of the latter two species. The new species differs markedly from M. versicolor by its much smaller size and from both species by its small, rounded and flat ocularium with intense pigmentation around the eyes. The ocularium closely resembles that of M. krausi Kauri, 1961 , but M. neglecta differs in the tarsal formula 3-3-4-4 of the legs and the strong dorsal spination of the palp femur.The penis is different from other investigated or described Monomontia species, but shows a close resemblance to Ceratomontia minor Lawrence, 1931 (Kauri 1961) .

Figures

Fig. 5. Monomontia, general habitus, dorsal (A, B, D–F, H) and lateral (C, G, I) views: (A–D) M. aquilonaris, Lajuma: (A) ơ, (C, D) ^; (E–G) M. versicolor ơ: (E) holotype, Mariespskop, (F, G) Lajuma; (H, I) M. neglecta sp. n., Makhado. Scale bars = 1.0 mm; scale bar top left for A, B, E, F; at H for H and I.

Fig. 6. Monomontia, ơ headcaps, lateral view: (A–D) M. versicolor: (A, B) Mariepskop, holotype and paratype, (C) Lajuma, (D) Makhado; (E–H) M. aquilonaris, Lajuma, different individuals; (I) M. neglecta sp. n., Makhado. Scale bars = 0.2 mm, bottom left for A–D; at H for E–H; at I for I.

Fig. 7. Monomontia, ơ leg I and chelicerae: (A–E) M. aquilonaris: (A) holotype, (B–E) Lajuma; (F–I) M. versicolor, Lajuma; (K–M) M. neglecta sp. n, Makhado. (A, B, F, K) leg I, lateral view, (C, D, G, H, L, M) chelicera, (I, E) pincer, (C, E, H, I, L) lateral and (D, G, M) medial aspects. Scale bar = 0.5 mm.

Fig. 8. Monomontia, ơ palps: (A, B) M. aquilonaris, Lajuma; (C–H) M. versicolor: (C, D) Lajuma, (E, F) Mariepskop, (G, H) Makhado; (I, K) M. neglecta sp. n., Makhado. (A, B, I) palpus, (C–H, K) femur of palp; (B, D, F, H, K) lateral view, (A, I) medial view, (C, E, G) ventral view. Scale bar = 0.5 mm.

Fig. 9. Monomontia, penes: (A–F) M. versicolor: (A, B) Lajuma, (C, D) Makhado, (E, F) Mariepskop; (G, H) M. aquilonaris, Lajuma; (I, K) M. neglecta sp. n., Makhado. (A, C, E, G, I) dorsal and (B, D, F, H, K) lateral views. Scale bar = 0.2 mm.

Fig.10. Monomontia, glans penes: (A–F) M. versicolor: (A, B) Makhado, (C, D) Lajuma, (E, F) Mariepskop; (G, H) M. aquilonaris, Lajuma; (I, K) M. neglecta sp. n., Makhado. (A, C, E, G, I) lateral and (B, D, F, H, K) dorsal views. Scale bar = 0.1 mm.