Hottentotta pachyurus (Pocock, 1897)

Kovařík, František, 2007, A revision of the genus Hottentotta Birula, 1908, with descriptions of four new species (Scorpiones, Buthidae), Euscorpius 58 (58), pp. 1-107 : 50

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.18590/euscorpius.2007.vol2007.iss58.1
publication LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:pub:757F81BB-485C-4959-BD78-7B1172359ACF
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B62B3424-2F4C-FFFA-2319-1F7F0C67FA25
treatment provided by	Felipe
scientific name	Hottentotta pachyurus (Pocock, 1897)
status

Treatment

Hottentotta pachyurus (Pocock, 1897) View in CoL

( Figs. 15 View Figures 13–16 , 77–81 View Figure 77 View Figure 78 View Figure 79 View Figure 80 View Figure 81 )

Buthus pachyurus Pocock, 1897a: 107 ; Kraepelin, 1899: 20; Pocock, 1900a: 27; Kraepelin, 1913: 129 (in part); Lindberg, 1946: 152; Takashima, 1945: 75.

Buthus pachyurus typicus : Kraepelin, 1913: 130.

Buthus (Buthus) pachyurus : Roewer, 1943: 206.

Buthotus pachyurus : Vachon, 1949: 147 (1952: 233); Vachon & Stockmann, 1968: 91; Kovařík, 199 2: 183.

Hottentotta (Hottentotta) pachyurus View in CoL : Kovařík, 1998: 110.

Hottentotta pachyura : Kovařík, 2001b: 83; Kovařík, 2002: 7.

Mesobuthus pachyurus : Tikader & Bastawade, 1983: 236; Fet & Lowe, 2000: 178; Bastawade, 2002: 294.

= Hemibuthus kraepelini Roewer, 1943: 213 (syn. by Kovařík, 1999: 291).

Hottentotta View in CoL (?) kraepelini : Fet & Lowe, 2000: 141.

= Hottentotta (Deccanobuthus) geffardi Lourenço, 2000: 192 ; Lourenço, 2004: 211; Lourenço & Ythier, 2 006: 71. Syn. n.

Hottentotta rugiscutis View in CoL : Kovařík, 1999: 291 (in part); Kovařík, 200 2: 7.

TYPE LOCALITY AND TYPE REPOSITORY. India, Maharashtra, Mundla ; BMNH.

TYPE MATERIAL EXAMINED. India, Maharashtra, Mundla , 1♀ (lectotype hereby designated, Figs. 77–78 View Figure 77 View Figure 78 ), leg. A. N. Cacia, BMNH No. 1896.9.26.17–19 ; Tamil Nadu; Dekan, Nilgiris , 1♀ (lectotype of Hemibuthus kraepelini Roewer, 1943 , Figs. 80–81 View Figure 80 View Figure 81 ) and 2♂ (paralectotypes Nos 1–2 of Hemibuthus kraepelini Roewer, 1943 ), SMFD No. 8880/222 ; Maharashtra, Deccan Kurduvadi , 18º05'N 75º26'E, VII.1939, 1♀ (holotype of Hottentotta (Deccanobuthus) geffardi Lourenço, 2000 , Fig. 79 View Figure 79 ), leg. K. Lindberg, ZMUH No. A 70/00 GoogleMaps .

OTHER MATERIAL EXAMINED. India, Tamil Nadu, Deccan, Nilgiris , 1♂ 2♀ 1juv., SMFD No. 8851/193 and No. 1084/15; Deccan , 2♀ ( Fig. 15 View Figures 13–16 ), 1985, FKCP .

DIAGNOSIS. Total length 35–50 mm. For habitus see Figs. 77–81 View Figure 77 View Figure 78 View Figure 79 View Figure 80 View Figure 81 . Trichobothrium db on the fixed finger of pedipalp situated between trichobothria et and est. Male with fingers proximally twisted, manus and metasomal segments slightly wider than female, and with slightly longer and narrower metasomal segments. Pectinal teeth number 20–24. Chelicerae yellow to green, usually reticulate. Nearly entire body hirsute, pedipalps, dorsal surface of mesosoma, legs, lateral and ventral surfaces of metasomal segments, and vesicle densely hirsute. The hairs on patella of pedipalps are long. Color uniformly reddish brown to black. Femur of pedipalp with 5 carinae. Dorsal surface of femur granulated. Patella usually with 2 carinae on internal surface, other carinae poorly defined or absent. Chela lacks carinae. Movable fingers of pedipalps with 12 rows of granules and 5 terminal granules. Seventh metasomal segment with 4 well marked ventral granulated carinae. Dorsal surfaces of mesosoma and carapace granulated. First to fourth metasomal segments with 10 carinae; fifth segment with 5 carinae. Entire metasoma (except smooth dorsal surface with but a few solitary granules) densely granulated. Granules large, conspicuous, may obscure carinae. Telson also densely granulated. First to third metasomal segments of adult females wider than long. Second to fourth metasomal segment width ratio about 1.1. Length to width ratio of fourth metasomal segment less than 1.2.

COMMENTS. Tikader & Bastawade (1983: 185–188) placed this species together with H. tamulus and H. rugiscutis in Mesobuthus . However, according to Fet & Lowe (2000: 134) the placement of this “Indian lineage” in Mesobuthus is uncertain. Lourenço (2000: 192) accepted the transfer of Indian species from Hottentotta to Mesobuthus , but left the Indian Hottentotta (Deccanobuthus) geffardi Lourenço, 2000 in Hottentotta . Examination of the holotype ( Fig. 79 View Figure 79 ) has shown this taxon to be a synonym of H. pachyurus ( Fig. 77 View Figure 77 ). In this revision, all Indian species of Mesobuthus are moved back to Hottentotta .

I originally synonymized Hemibuthus kraepelini Roewer, 1943 ( Figs. 80 View Figure 80 and 81 View Figure 81 ) with H. rugiscutis (see Kovařík, 1999: 291). At that time I did not see the types of H. rugiscutis , H. hendersoni , and H. pachyurus and based the synonymy only on published information. Now, upon examination of types of the said taxa and of several hundred other specimens from India I am convinced that Hemibuthus kraepelini Roewer, 1943 is a synonym of H. pachyurus . The lectotype is being designated in order to stabilize the nomenclature.