" Parajulus " stylifer Pocock, 1907

Figs. 13–14

Paraiulus stylifer Pocock, 1907:57, figs. 2, 2a, pl. 5, figs. 11, 11a. Loomis, 1968a:75. Hoffman, 1999:171. Parajulus stylifer: Chamberlin, 1922:19 .

Type specimens. 1ɗ and 1Ψ syntypes (BMNH) collected by A. Stoll on an unknown date at Volcan de Agua, Sacatepéquez/Escuintla Depts., Guatemala; ca. 5Ψ syntypes taken by an unknown collector on an unknown date at Volcan de Acatenango, Sacatepéquez/Chimaltenango Depts., Guatemala. The ags of the male syntype are lost, and from the irregular margin, the posterior appendages seem damaged with one or more projections possibly being broken off and lost.

Potential diagnostic features. The single, strongly bent caudal projection on the posterior gonopod and the apparent absence of a solenomere.

Distribution. Unknown. A sample with an adult male in the NMNH is labeled " stylifer," but this cannot be stated definitely until a male topotype is available. Data for this sample are: GUATEMALA: Quezaltenango Dept., Cerro Leonardo, 21 May 1906, collector unknown (? O. F. Cook) (NMNH).

Remarks. The irregular ventromedial margin of the pg of the ɗ syntype, which does not exhibit spinules, suggests that one or more structures in this position have been broken off and removed. An undamaged male topotype is necessary to show the ags, clarify the condition of the pg, and establish the true identity of stylifer .

The only locality provided in Pocock's (1907) original description was Guatemala without further details; those above are on vial labels. The name, stylifer, should be assigned to a topotypical male from Volcan de Agua that matches the seemingly fragmented posterior gonopod in fig. 13; it should not be applied to a male from Volcan de Acatenango, which may be a different species.

The syntype localities of " P." stylifer are ca. 1,072 km (670 mi) south of the type locality of M. dampfi . Thus, congeneric status seems implausible, but the resemblance of the apparently broken pg of stylifer and Verhoeff's illustration of dampfi (1926:70, fig. 9) is undeniable.