Elsalvadoria zurstrasseni ( Bott, 1956 )

Magalhães, Célio & Wehrtmann, Ingo S., 2025, Taxonomic revision and distribution of the freshwater crabs of the family Pseudothelphusidae (Decapoda, Brachyura) from Guatemala, with the descriptions of two new species and keys to the species of all genera, Zoosystema 47 (26), pp. 581-615 : 588-589

Elsalvadoria zurstrasseni ( Bott, 1956)

( Figs 3 D-H; 14)

Pseudothelphusa zurstrasseni zurstrasseni Bott, 1956: 229 , 232, pl. 32, fig. 5; pl. 35, fig. 5a, b.

Elsalvadoria zurstrasseni – Smalley 1970: 100, fig. 15-17; 105 (in key). — Rodríguez 1982: 59: fig. 10f, g, j; 2001: 440 (in key). — Villalobos Hiriart & Álvarez 2008: 295 (in list). — Ng et al. 2008: 173 (in list). — Wehrtmann et al. 2016: 779 (in list). — Acevedo-Alonso & Cumberlidge 2022: 578 (Appendix 2, in list).

Elsalvadoria zurstrasseni zurstrasseni – Pretzmann 1971: 21 (in list); 1972: 96.

MATERIAL EXAMINED. — Guatemala • 1♂ (30.6:18.8); Escuintla, San José [ 13°55’37.5”N, 90°49’04.11”W; 6 m elev.]; 10.X.1993; A. Kepfer leg.; UVGCR 328 • 2♂ (17.2:11.6; 23.8:16.1) 3 ♀ (13.7:9.5; 13.8:9.5; 16.2:11.0); Suchitepéquez, Patutul, Finca Los Tarrales, stream inside the farm ; 14°31’28”N, 91°08’07”W; 875 m elev.; 19.I.2014; I. S. Wehrtmann, M. Orozco, C. Magalhães & M. W. Dix leg.; UCR-MZ 3231-01 • 2♂ (23.4:15.5; 26.0:16.5); Suchitepéquez, Patutul, Finca Los Tarrales, stream inside the farm ; 14°31’28”N, 91°08’07”W; 875 m elev.; 19.I.2014; I. S. Wehrtmann, M. Orozco, C. Magalhães & M. W. Dix leg.; INPA 2124 • 1♂ (19.6:13.0) 1 ♀ (21.1:13.6), dry; Guatemala, municipality of Fraijanes, aldea El Cerrito [ 14°26’N, 90°27’W; 1482 m elev.], quebrada La Escurana, tributary of Río Fraijanes ; I.2000; leg. unknown; INPA 2137 • 1 ♂ (26.4:17.1), 1 ov. ♀ (26.6:16.3); Santa Rosa, Renacimiento [? Renacimiento, on the Panamerican highway to El Salvador; 14°15’24”N, 90°16’13”W; 733 m elev.]; date unknown; R. Chea leg.; INPA 2474 .

COMPARATIVE MATERIAL EXAMINED. — Elsalvadoria zurstrasseni zurstrasseni ( Bott, 1956) : El Salvador • 1♂ (27.1:17.1), holotype; La Liberdad, La Joya, road to Ciudad Arce, Chilamatal ; 18.VIII.1951; A. Zilch leg.; SMF 2449 • 1 ♂ (24.8:16.6), paratype; El Salvador, Santa Ana, Laguna de Guija ; 3.V.1951; A. Zilch leg.; INPA 2142 (ex-SMF 2452) . — Pseudothelphusa zurstrasseni arcuata Bott, 1956 : El Salvador • 1 ♂ (21.1:13.6), holotype, Morazán, Cacaguatique mountain near Osicala, Finca San Pedro ; 13.IX.1951; A. Zilch leg.; SMF 2443 . — Pseudothelphusa zurstrasseni tridentata Bott, 1956 : El Salvador • 1 ♂ (25.7:15.7), holotype; Sonsonate, waterfall 2 km west from Juayua (Rio Santa Rita) ; 17.VII.1951; A. Zilch leg.; SMF 2441 .

DISTRIBUTION. — Guatemala ( Escuintla, Guatemala, Santa Rosa, Suchitepéquez) ( Smalley 1970; Wehrtmann et al. 2016; this study) ( Fig. 14) and El Salvador ( Bott 1956; Rodríguez 1982).

The type locality is in El Salvador (La Liberdad, La Joya, road to Ciudad Arce, Chilamatal) ( Bott 1956). Smalley (1970) mentioned the occurrence of this species in Guatemala but did not indicate any voucher specimen. Pretzmann (1972) probably just followed Smalley’s citation, as he has not examined any specimen from the country. Wehrtmann et al. (2016) recorded the species from the departments of Escuintla, Guatemala, and Suchitepéquez based on material collected during their surveys, but they did not list the specimens and their specific localities; this information is now provided herein.

DESCRIPTION OF G1 ( Fig. 3 D-H)

Stem moderately sinuous, moderately compressed in caudocephalic direction, distal portion distinctly curved in laterocephalic direction, slightly wider subdistally; caudal margin, in mesial view, with strong median constriction and enlarged subdistal hump-like lobe, followed by irregular row of variable-sized spines; cephalic margin regularly convex medianly in mesial view. Marginal suture on mesial surface gently following the curvature of stem; row of long and short setae along proximal portion of marginal suture. Marginal process simple, slightly concave in mesial view, not overreaching apex. Lateral suture incomplete, marked by sulcus extending slightly beyond level of median constriction of caudal surface. Mesial process absent. Cephalic surface with cephalic process greatly developed as subdistal distinctly bilobed enlargment, directed basally and partially twisted towards mesial side, with irregular row of minute spines along its proximal margin. Lateral process as strong, three-dimensionally conical protuberance situated subdistally near base of cephalic process on laterocephalic surface, pointing towards lateral side. Distal portion of lateral surface without distinct distal spiny lobe; some specimens with subdistal small, rounded lateral lobe bearing minute spines situated obliquely slightly lower than subterminal spine. Apex open, oblong, elongated mesolaterally, directed cephalad; mesocaudal margin smooth, produced into rounded lobe, somewhat more elevated in relation to laterocephalic margin. Field of apical spines moderately developed, elongated mesolaterally, with small spines.

REMARKS

The specimens examined by us, which include the type material of the nominal and subspecific forms described by Bott (1956), showed a certain amount of variation in the morphology of G1, particularly in the shape of the cephalic process and in the presence or absence of the subdistal lobe of the lateral surface. At least in all Guatemalan specimens analyzed herein, the cephalic process is bilobed but can exhibit either: 1) nearly symmetrical rounded lobes separated by a slightly concave depression (e.g., INPA 2124 – Fig. 3F); 2) nearly symmetrical sharp lobes separated by deep cleft (e.g., INPA 2474 – Fig. 3G), which is similar to that of the holotype ( SMF 2449 – Fig. 3E); or, 3) asymmetrical sharp lobes also separated by deep cleft (e.g., INPA 2137 – Fig. 3H). The morphology of the cephalic process is also variable in specimens from El Salvador, which led Bott (1956) to treat them as subspecies. Rodríguez (1982), in turn, considered it very possible that this is a normal variation for the species and treated them as synonyms.

As for the subdistal lobe of the lateral surface, some (e.g., INPA 2124 – Fig. 3F, 2137, 2474; UCR-MZ 3231-01) of the Guatemalan specimens show this lobe very clearly but it is absent in others (e.g., INPA 2137). However, it is not present in the holotype of the nominal species ( Fig. 3E) nor in the subspecies described by Bott (1956), although it is present in one of the paratypes of the nominal species (INPA 2142) from El Salvador ( Santa Ana, Laguna de Guija).

Such variability might suggest that we are dealing with a species complex and additional studies are required to resolve this question. For now, we prefer to maintain the concept adopted by Rodríguez (1982) and consider only one valid species until a more comprehensive study, including molecular analyses, can be conducted based on a more abundant series of specimens from the region.