Genus Neischnocolus Petrunkevitch, 1925

Neischnocolus Petrunkevitch, 1935: 85 .

Barropelma Chamberlin, 1940: 39 (synonymised by Pérez-Miles et al. 2019: 151).

Ami Pérez-Miles in Pérez-Miles et al., 2008: 55 (synonymised by Pérez-Miles et al. 2019: 151).

Crypsidromus – Raven 1985: 156 (in part, considered junior synonym).

Lasiodora – Pérez-Miles et al. 1996: 52 (in part, considered junior synonym of Crypsidromus).

Ami – Kaderka 2014: 208. — Almeida et al. 2019: 642.

Neischnocolus – Gabriel 2016: 85. — Pérez-Miles et al. 2019: 151. — Kaderka 2020: 442. — Peñaherrera-R. et al. 2023: 484.

Type species

Neischnocolus panamanus Petrunkevitch, 1925 by monotypy.

Amended diagnosis

Urticating setae morphology of the males and females of Neischnocolus resemble those found in Citharacanthus Pocock, 1901 by having urticating setae Subtype Id. Nevertheless, Neischnocolus can be distinguished from Citharacanthus and all other known genera of Theraphosinae by having a noticeable enlarged C2 region, being ~4–5 times as long as C1 region (Pérez-Miles et al. 2019: fig. 1). Males of Neischnocolus differ from all known Theraphosini genera by the distinct medial to distal dorso-retrolateral torsion of the embolus, creating a mucronate shape in conjunction with the embolus tip and the presence of an enlarged and crested intermediate keel, and pronounced and wide tegular apophysis. Females of Neischnocolus differ from all known Theraphosini genera by having wide and fused spermathecae with a pair of receptacles originating from ventro-medial surface of spermathecae (except N. parvior and N. weinmanni) and horizontal striae.

Male palpal bulb morphology of Neischnocolus slightly resembles that of Jambu Miglio, Perafán & Pérez-Miles, 2024 by the presence of a pronounced and wide tegular apophysis with a medial extension over the prolateral surface of the bulb and the absence of a prolateral crease by the prolateral extension of the non-sclerotized median haematodocha. Nevertheless, males of Neischnocolus differ from those of Jambu by having urticating setae Type I (Id), a comparatively wide, short, and non-filiform embolus with a distal dorso-retrolateral torsion, the apical section of the embolus with a mucronate shape, prolateral superior and inferior keels comparatively more conspicuous, the presence of an enlarged and crested intermediate keel, two or one (in N. armihuarensis; Kaderka 2014: figs 4–5) developed retrolateral palpal tibial apophysis, the prolateral extension of the median haematodocha comparatively elongate and extending to the prolateral surface of the tegulum, and the absence of a paraembolic apophysis (urticating setae Type IV, comparatively thinner, elongated, and filiform embolus with a medial to distal slight ventral curvature, apical section of embolus without a mucronate shape, inconspicuous prolateral superior (if present) and inferior keels, only one weakly developed domed retrolateral palpal tibial apophysis (in J. paru; Miglio et al. 2024: fig. 1e), prolateral extension of median haematodocha comparatively shorter and restricted to tegulum and subtegulum indentation, and absence of an enlarged and crested intermediate keel in Jambu).

General spermathecae morphology of Neischnocolus resembles that of Aguapanela Perafán & Cifuentes, 2015 by having wide and fused spermathecae with a pair of ventral receptacles. Nevertheless, females of Neischnocolus differ from those of Aguapanela by having urticating setae Type I (Id), nonhypersclerotised receptacles emerging from the medial surface of the spermathecae, and the absence of stridulatory setae (urticating setae Types III and IV and hypersclerotised receptacles emerging from the distal surface of the spermathecae, plumose stridulatory setae over coxae, trochanters, and femur I–II, palpal coxa and trochanter in Aguapanela; Perafán et al. 2015: figs 7–12, 16).

Description

See Pérez-Miles et al. (2019).

Distribution

Colombia, Costa Rica, Brazil, Ecuador, Panama, Peru, and Venezuela (Fig. 2).

Species included

Neischnocolus amazonica (Jimenez & Bertani, 2008), N. armihuariensis (Kaderka, 2014), N. caxiuana (Pérez-Miles, Miglio & Bonaldo, 2008), N. cisnerosi (Peñaherrera-R., Guerrero-Campoverde, León-E., Pinos-Sánchez & Falcón-Reibán, 2023), N. samonellaacademy Peñaherrera-R., León-E., Guerrero-Campoverde, Gabriel, Sherwood & Cisneros-Heredia sp. nov., N. iquitos (Kaderka, 2020), N. mecana (Echeverri, Gómez Torres, Pinel & Perafán, 2023), N. moraspungo Cisneros-Heredia, Peñaherrera-R., Guerrero-Campoverde, León-E., Gabriel & Sherwood sp. nov., N. obscurus (Ausserer, 1875), N. panamanus (Petrunkevitch, 1925; type species), N. parvior (Chamberlin & Ivie, 1936) stat. rev. et comb. nov., N. tiputini Guerrero-Campoverde, Peñaherrera-R., León-E., Gabriel, Sherwood & Cisneros-Heredia sp. nov., N. tsere (Peñaherrera-R., Guerrero-Campoverde, León-E., Pinos-Sánchez & Falcón-Reibán, 2023), N. valentinae (Almeida, Salvatierra & de Morais, 2019), N. weinmanni (Pérez-Miles, 2008), N. yupanquii (Pérez-Miles, Gabriel & Gallon, 2008) .

Remarks

Male and female of Neischnocolus pijaos are included within another work (Peñaherrera-R. & Guayasamin in prep.). The placement of each specimen is dubious and required further examination and comparison with an upcoming new genus.