Singaporemma singulare Shear, 1978

Figures 6C–c, 9A

Singaporemma singularis Shear, 1978: 36, figs 108–111

S. singulare Lin et al., 2017: 47, figs 22A–H, 23A–E, G–H, 24A–H, 25A–E, 26A–D.

Examined material. Holotype ♂ and Paratype 1♀ (AMNH), SINGAPORE: near MacRitchie Reservoir, 25 October 1950, M.W.F. Tweedie leg.

Other material. 5♂ and 4♀ (SUMNH), SINGAPORE: Central Catchment Nature Reserve, Treetop Walk, 103°48.490′N, 1°21.222′E, 28 August 2015, S. Li and Y. Tong leg.

Diagnosis. Male of S. singulare differs from those of S. bifurcata and S. wulongensis by the embolus without furcate tip (Fig. 6c vs. Fig. 6e–f); from male of S. adjacens by the slender, narrower embolus (Fig. 6c vs. Fig. 6h); from male of S. takensis sp. n. by the nearly straight embolus (Fig. 6c vs. Fig. 6g); from male of S. banxiaoensis, S. halongense, and S. lenachanae by the embolic base starts from the centre of bulbous prolateral surface (Fig. 6C vs. Fig. 6A–B, 6D) and the knife-shaped embolic tip (Fig. 6c vs. Fig. 6a–b, 6d), but the blunt embolic tip in S. halongense and S. lenachanae (Fig. 6a, 6d), the larger palpal tibia, shorter embolus in S. banxiaoensis (Fig. 6B, 6b). Female of S. singulare can be distinguished from the females of all other congeners with exception of S. lenachanae by the absence of central process (Fig. 9A vs. Figs 2E, 5C–D, 7A–C, 8A–B). Female of S. singulare is closer to S. lenachanae in having a similar configuration of vulva, but can be distinguished from the latter by the shorter lateral horns, the wider postgenital plate, and the vulval ducts bent forward (Fig. 9A vs. Fig. 9B).

Description. See Lin et al., 2017: 47.

Distribution. Singapore (Fig. 10).

Remarks. Shear (1978) originally described S. singulare from Singapore that was appointed to type species of the genus Singaporemma . Because only the male specimen was available at that time, he illustrated an embolus of the right palp that was said to be “curving sharply posteriorly” (Shear, 1978: 36, figs 109–110). Schwendinger and Košulič (2015) suggested that Shear’s description of the male of S. singulare was doubtful because it was based on the only male specimen, and they suspect that an atypical specimen may have been used to describe the male palp of S. singulare (Schwendinger & Košulič, 2015) . After re-examining the holotype of the species and photographed its left palp (Fig. 6C–c), we can confirm that a deformed embolus was indeed described by Shear (1978).