Eusarcus catharinensis (Mello-Leitão) Hara & Pinto-Da-Rocha, 2010

Hara, Marcos Ryotaro & Pinto-Da-Rocha, Ricardo, 2010, Systematic review and cladistic analysis of the genus Eusarcus Perty 1833 (Arachnida, Opiliones, Gonyleptidae) 2698, Zootaxa 2698, pp. 1-136 : 42-45

Eusarcus catharinensis (Mello-Leitão) comb. n.

( Figs. 9, 39C,D, 50B)

Metagraphinotus catharinensis Mello-Leitão 1927: 401 (cit), 412; Roewer 1929: 235 (rdesc), fig. 23; Mello-Leitão 1932: 154 (rdesc), fig. 76; Mello-Leitão 1935a: 13 (diag); B. Soares 1945c: 379 (cat); Soares & Soares 1954b: 274 (cat); Acosta 1996b: 224 (cat); Kury 2003a: 175 (cat). (fe paratype; " Brazil, Santa Catharina; SMF 945/29"; examined).

Eusarcus pusillus Mello-Leitão 1931a: 120 , fig. 2; Mello-Leitão 1935b: 101 (cit); 1940: 6 (key); B. Soares 1945c: 376 (cat). [junior homonym of E. pusillus Sørensen 1884 ]. (ma holotype; “Rodeio, Santa Catarina; Bauer leg.; MNRJ 11376”; examined).

Eusarcus perpusillus Mello-Leitão 1945:155 (nom nov for Eusarcus pusillus Mello-Leitão 1931a nec Sørensen 1884 ), 158 (key), fig. 19; Soares & Soares 1954b: 261 (cat); H. Soares 1966a: 92 (cit); Kury 2003a: 170 (cat). Syn. n.

Eusarcus antoninae Mello-Leitão 1936: 4 , fig. 2; Mello-Leitão 1940: 7 (key); 1945: 153 (cat), 158 (key), fig. 7; B. Soares 1945b: 193 (cit); 1945c: 374(cat); Soares & Soares 1945b: 367 (dist); 1954b: 258 (cat); H. Soares 1966a: 92, fig. 4 (descr fe); Kury 2003a: 168 (cat). (ma holotype; “Antonina, Paraná; MNRJ 42274”; examined). Syn. n.

Eusarcus tripos Mello-Leitão 1940: 5 , 7 (key), fig. 8; 1945: 156 (cat), 158 (key), fig. 21; Soares & Soares 1946b: 224 (dist); 1947b: 257 (syst); 1954b: 262 (cat); Kury 2003a: 170 (cat). (ma holotype; Jupuvura, São Paulo; deposited in MZSP, lost). Syn. n.

Metagraphinotus trochanterspinosus Soares & Soares 1947a: 212 (cit); 1947b: 251 (cit), 256, figs. 6–7; 1954b: 274 (cat); Kury 2003a: 175 (cat). (ma holotype; "Piraquara, Banhado, [Paraná]; C.N. Gofferjé leg., xii.1945 "; deposited in the private collection of Mr. Carlos Nicolau Gofferjé, not examined). Syn. n.

Eusarcus armatus : [misid] Mello-Leitão 1923b: 121 (cat), 184 (key); Roewer 1927: 335 (cit [pars]); 1929: 197 (cit [pars]); B. Soares 1944a: 222 (cit); 1944b: 286 (dist); 1946: 519 (cat).

Eusarcus catarinesis [sic]; Bragagnolo et al. 2007: 393 (dist).

Material examined: BRAZIL. Santa Catarina: without name of collector and date, 1 fe paratype of M. catharinensis ( SMF 945 N o. 29); Rodeio, Bauer leg., ma holotype of E. perpusillus ( MNRJ 11376). Paraná: Antonina, F.L. de Morretes leg., ma holotype of E. antoninae ( MNRJ 42274). Rio de Janeiro: Rio de Janeiro (Grajaú), Wygodzynsky leg., 11.v.1947, 1 ma & 1 fe ( MNRJ 11397); Petrópolis, without name of collector and date, 1 ma ( SMF 954-35). São Paulo: Cananéia (Ilha do Cardoso), G. Machado leg., 12–18.i.2000, 1 ma ( MZSP 21813); Guarujá (Ilha Santo Amaro), J. Schubart leg., without date, 1 ma ( MNRJ 11367); Iporanga (Minas de São Francisco), Schubart leg., 18.ii.1951, 1 fe ( MNRJ 16156); Itapecerica da Serra (Batêa), F. Lane & B.A.M. Soares leg., 15.v.1943, 1 ma ( MZSP 881); Miracatu (Fazenda Iterei, 24°03’S 47°13’W), Eq. Biota leg., 20–26.ix.2001, 2 fe ( IBSP 3399); Peruíbe (Estação Ecológica Juréia), A.D. Brescovit leg., 10.xii.1998, 1 fe ( IBSP 1428); idem, Exp. MZSP leg., 25–27.v.1982, 1 ma ( MZSP 21298); Ribeirão Pires, Bresslau leg., 1 ma ( SMF 1443); Santo André (Alto da Serra), F. Lane & B.A.M. Soares leg., 18.iii.1943, 2 ma & 7 fe ( MZSP 431); idem, 1 fe ( MZSP 24099); Santos (Ilha Santo Amaro), B.A.M. Soares leg., x.1941, 2 ma ( MNRJ 11365); Juquiá (Poço Grande), without name of collector and date, 1 ma ( MZSP 1576). Paraná: Bocaiúva do Sul (Imbuia, estrada Curitiba– São Paulo Km 102), O. Curial leg., vi.1967, 1 ma ( MHNC 130); Curitiba, Gengnagel leg., iii.1947, 1 fe ( HEMS 210); Campina Grande do Sul (Represa Capivari), R. Pinto-da-Rocha leg., 5.vii.1989, 1 ma ( MHNC 6534); Guaraqueçaba, A. Chagas Jr. leg., 11.xi.2000, 1 ma & 1 fe ( MNRJ 4744); Guaratuba (Usina de Guaricana), A.B. Kury, R. Pinto-da-Rocha & A. Giupponi leg., 8.iii.1999, 1 beta male ( MNRJ 5810); Morretes (Anhaia), Gofferjé leg., vii.1942, 1 fe subsequently and erroneously designated as “ allotype ” & 1 ma of E. antoninae ( HEMS 241); idem (Parque Estadual Marumbi, 25°26’S 48°55’W), R. Pinto-da-Rocha & A. Chagas leg., 6–9.ix.1999, 1 ma, 1 beta male & 1 fe ( MZSP 18753); idem, 1 ma & 1 fe ( MZSP 18773); idem (Véu de Noiva), R. Pinto-da-Rocha & W. Wosiack leg., 23.x.1988, ma ( MHNC 6279); idem, R. Pinto-da-Rocha & R.S. Bérnils leg., 12.i.1991, 1 beta male ( MHNC 6851); idem (Véu de Noiva, 25°25’S 48°56’W), R. Pinto-da-Rocha & A. Chagas leg., 8.iv.1999, 1 ma & 4 fe ( MZSP 18806); Piraquara (Banhado) , R. Pinto-da-Rocha & R.S. Bérnils leg., 13.i.1991, 1 ma & 2 fe ( MHNC 6836); idem, C.N. Gofferjé leg., vii.1947, 1 ma & 1 fe ( MZSP 1337); Quatro Barras (Alto da Serra), S.F. Caron leg., 1.xi.1987, 1 ma ( MHNC 6270); idem, R. Lange leg., xi.1956, 1 ma & 1 fe ( HEMS 1000). Santa Catarina: Balneário Camboriú (Praia da Laranjeira), A. Giupponi leg., 23.ii.2002, 1 ma & 2 fe ( MNRJ 4954); Blumenau (P.E. Spitzkopf), A. Bonaldo, A.B. Kury & R. Pinto-da-Rocha leg., 3.ii.1996, 1 ma & 6 fe & 1 im ( MNRJ 6972); idem, C.N. Gofferjé leg., ix.1955, 1 ma ( MHNC 6274); Ilhota (Parque Botânico Morro do Baú), R. & A. Baptista leg., 25.i.1990, 1 ma & 1 fe ( MNRJ 6654); idem, A. Bonaldo, A.B. Kury & R. Pinto-da-Rocha leg., 4.ii.1996, 3 ma & 7 fe & 1 im ( MNRJ 6955); idem, R. Pinto-da-Rocha, R. Bérnils & R. Lingnau leg., 1–2.iv.1999, 2 ma & 1 fe ( MZSP 18654); Rancho Queimado, A.B. Bonaldo leg., 3–11.x.1994, 1 ma ( MCNZ 1256); Rio dos Cedros (Alto Palmeiras), J. Jim leg., 17.viii.1969, 1 ma ( HEMS 444).

Diagnosis: E. catharinensis resembles E. oxyacanthus because of the presence of prolateral median and apical apophyses on the male trochanter IV, and can be distinguished by: The absence of PAM; ocularium with 1 pair of large or high tubercles or with a median spine; femur I with ventral rows of similar-sized tubercles; shape of longitudinal prolateral apical apophysis on male trochanter IV the length of which is half of the width of its podomere.

Redescription: Male (MZSP 431): Dorsum ( Fig. 9A,B): Measurements: SL 4.20; SMW 3.80; femur I 2.10; II 4.50; III 3.40; IV 3.70. PAM absent. Ocularium far from anterior scutal margin; with 4 large tubercles, 6 small ones. Carapace with 17 scattered tubercles. Scutal area I with 16–21 scattered tubercles on each side; II with 35; III with 43 and a median spine of medium size, oblique, reaching groove V but not surpassing posterior margin of dorsal sucutum; IV with 29 tubercles. Posterior margin of dorsal scutum and free tergites I–III with a row of 18, 15, 12, 11 tubercles, respectively. Anal operculum with 37 tubercles.

Venter: Coxa I with 18 tubercles, median and distal ones largest; II with 26–29, distal ones largest; III–IV irregularly tuberculate.

Chelicera: Segment I with 2 tubercles.

Pedipalpus: Trochanter dorsally inflated, with 1 tubercle. Femur dorsally smooth; ventrally with 1 large basal tubercle, 1–2 small scattered tubercles. Tibial setation: Prolateral IiIi, retrolateral IiIi/IiI. Tarsal setation: Prolateral IIi, retrolateral IiIi.

Legs ( Fig. 9C–H): Coxa IV densely tuberculate, with 1 very oblique prolateral apical apophysis, this conical, long, curved posteriad and ventrad, swollen subapically. Trochanters I–IV with scattered tubercles; I– II with 1 large ventro-basal tubercle; I with 1–2 large apical tubercles; IV prolaterally with 1 median apophysis, this conical, sinuous, blunt; 1 longitudinal conical apical apophysis; retrolaterally with 1 large subasal tubercle. Femur I with reduced PDS, RDS; ventrally with 2 rows of slightly enlarged tubercles; II–III with small PDS, medium RDS; III sinuous, ventrally with 2 rows of slightly enlarged tubercles; IV sinuous, with medium PDS, RDS; ventrally with a prolateral row of tubercles slightly increasing in size distally, a retrolateral row of small tubercles, 1 prolateral apical spine (PVS). Tarsal segmentation: 6, 9, 6, 6.

Penis ( Fig. 39C,D): Stylus with medio-ventral trichomes, apex slightly swollen; with angular medioventral projection. Ventral process of glans curved, apex with flabelliform projection. Glans with a dorsal, subapical, semi-spheric projection. Ventral plate with concave sides; with 3 pairs of long, curved distal setae; 1 pair of short, straight median setae; 3 pairs of straight basal setae.

Coloration: Reddish brown; dark brown on body edge and legs, apophyses of coxa and trochanter IV. Light brown on pedipalps, distal third of metatarsi and tarsi.

Female (subsequently and erroneously designated as “ allotype ” of E. antoninae ; HEMS 241): Dorsum: Measurements: SL 3.65; SMW 3.20; femur I 1.95; II 3.55; III 2.70; IV 3.35. Anterior margin with 4 large tubercles on each corner. Ocularium with 2 pointed large tubercles, 8 small ones. Scutal area III with median spine slightly curved backwards and upwards, reaching groove IV, but not groove V. Pedipalpus: Tibial setation: Prolateral IiIi, retrolateral iIiiIi. Tarsal setation: Prolateral IIi, retrolateral IiIi. Legs: Coxa IV densely tuberculate, with 1 oblique prolateral apical apophysis, this conical, short, curved backwards, pointed, surpassing posterior margin of that segment. Trochanter IV with scattered tubercles; retrolaterally with 1 subasal, 1 median and 1 apical (largest) large tubercles. Femur I with small PDS, RDS; II–IV with reduced PDS, RDS; III ventrally with two irregular rows, 1 large prolateral apical tubercle; IV ventrally with two irregular rows of tubercles, prolateral ones enlarged and slightly increasing in size distally, 1 large prolateral apical tubercle. Tarsal segmentation: 6, 7–8, 6, 6. Coloration: Yellowish brown; dark brown on legs and body edge.

Variation in males (n=6): Measurements: SL 3.20–4.20; SMW 3.00–3.80; femur I 1.70–2.10; II 3.40– 4.50; III 2.60–3.40; IV 2.90–3.70. Ocularium with similar-sized tubercles, 1 pair of large tubercles, 1 pair of spines or 1 median spine. Pedipalpus: Tibial setation: Prolateral IiIi/iiIi, retrolateral IiiIi/IiIi/IiI. Femur I with reduced or small PDS; II with small or medium RDS; III with reduced or small PDS, small or medium RDS; IV with small or medium PDS, RDS. Tarsal segmentation: 6, 7–9, 6, 6.

Variation in females (n=6): Measurements: SL 3.00–3.90; SMW 2.60–3.20; femur I 1.60–1.90; II 2.90– 4.00; III 2.10–2.90; IV 2.70–3.60. Pedipalpus: Tibial setation: Retrolateral iIiiIi/IiiIi/iIiIi/IiIi. Femur I with reduced or small PDS, RDS; II–III with reduced or small PDS, reduced to medium RDS; IV with reduced to medium PDS, RDS.

Nomenclatural note: The types of Eusarcus antoninae , E. perpusillus and E. tripos differ from each other in the armature of the ocularium (1 pair of spines, 1 pair of large and similar-sized tubercles, respectively); in the number of tubercles on the first cheliceral segment; in the proportion between apical spines of femora of the legs; and in the presence or absence of ventro-apical spines on tibia IV. After examination of specimens from several localities including the type localities, we concluded that the morphological differences among these holotypes are, in fact, due to intraspecific variation. Although the holotype of E. tripos is lost, specimens largely corresponding to the holotype description and collected near the type locality (Poço Grande, Jupuvura, São Paulo) were considered as representative of this “species”. Although the armature of the ocularium of these specimens does not correspond to the original description, it is not very different from the instraspecific morphological variation mentioned above, which thus justifies synonymy with E. catharinensis .

Although we have not examined the male holotype of M. trochanterspinosus , its description is precise enough and matches perfectly with the male specimen from vial MZSP 1337, collected at the type locality of M. trochanterspinosus . This material is important, because once we had reliable specimens of this species, we could evaluate whether it is a valid species or not. Comparing female specimens of M. trochanterspinosus with the female holotype of M. catharinensis , which is the type species of Metagraphinotus , we concluded that they belong to the same genus and species. It is noteworthy to mention that females of this species are among the few that can be identified to the species level.

Comparing further specimens of M. catharinensis and E. perpusillus , we verified that they are conspecific, the former differing from the latter only regarding armature of the ocularium, which is developed as a median spine. On examining male gentalia from both “species”, we verified that they also lie within the range of intraspecific variation, all possessing the dorsal glans projection, a character previously considered as autapomorphic for E. perpusillus . Under these circumstances, there are two options: (i) assume that there are two different species, probably sister species, or (ii) assume that there is one species, with a variation in the ocularium. Considering that these “species” are sympatric, and that E. perpusillus has morphological variation in the ocularium, we chose the second alternative. Therefore, we can conclude that E. catharinensis has a polymorphic ocularium, which can be unarmed, armed with 2 tubercles, 2 spines or with a median spine.

Type localities: Brazil. Of M. catharinensis : Santa Catarina. Of E. antoninae : Paraná, Antonina. Of E. perpusillus : Santa Catarina, Rodeio. Of E. tripos : São Paulo, Jupuvura. Of M. trochanterspinosus : Paraná, Banhado, Piraquara.

Geographical distribution ( Fig. 50B): SE–S Brazil. Rio de Janeiro to Santa Catarina.