Pseudocleobis patagonicus ( Roewer, 1934 ) Roewer, 1934

Botero-Trujillo, Ricardo & Iuri, Hernán A., 2015, Chileotrecha romero (Kraus, 1966) comb. nov. and Pseudocleobis patagonicus (Roewer, 1934) comb. nov. transferral from Mummuciidae to Ammotrechidae (Arachnida, Solifugae), Zootaxa 3990 (3), pp. 437-443 : 440-442

Pseudocleobis patagonicus ( Roewer, 1934) comb. nov., nomen dubium

( Figures 6–9 )

Mummucia patagonica Roewer, 1934: 585 , figs. 332a, 334b; Mello-Leitão, 1938: 18, 19, figs. 50–51; Mello-Leitão, 1939: 614; Zilch, 1946: 150; Muma, 1971: 2, 8 [in part], figs. 12–13; Cekalovic, 1975: 134 [in part]; Cekalovic, 1976: 84 [in part]; Muma, 1976: 24 [in part]; Maury, 1998: 568; Xavier & Rocha, 2001: 131; Harvey, 2003: 290 [in part]; Valdivia et al., 2008: 7.

Excluded (not Pseudocleobis patagonicus ; see Notes): Mummucia patagonica: Cekalovic & Quezada, 1969: 176 –177, figs. 1–2; Muma, 1971: 2, 8 [in part]; Cekalovic, 1974: 310; Cekalovic, 1975: 134 [in part]; Cekalovic, 1976: 84 [in part]; Muma, 1976: 24 [in part]; Harvey, 2003: 290 [in part].

Type material. Holotype (immature, examined); original label verbatim (text in brackets not in the label): “ Arachn. Coll. Roewer – Lfd. No. 3018 / Solifuga / No. 80 / Mummucia patagonica n. sp. / 1♀ / [ Argentina] Patagonien: Río S. Cruz / typus / Roewer det. 1933 ”.

Notes. Mummucia patagonica was described by Roewer (1934) from a single female specimen from Santa Cruz River, Argentina. The species description was vague and uninformative for many characters, and Roewer (1934) reported two features that contradict the placement of this species in Mummuciidae . One of them is the body coloration, which he described as “completely uniformly yellow” ( Roewer 1934: 585). The other, is the presence of spiniform setae on the pedipalps segments (as depicted in Roewer 1934: fig. 332a), much like those of Ammotrechidae as currently defined. Based on the latter feature, Xavier & Rocha (2001: 131) noted that Mummucia patagonica should be transferred to that family. However, these authors did not recommend any genus to host it, and since, this species has continued to be equivocally placed in Mummuciidae .

The holotype is an immature that lacks left leg I and both legs IV. The specimen was confirmed to display uniformly yellow body coloration and bear long ventral spiniform setae on the pedipalps. Likewise, the posterior margin of postspiracular sternite II lacks rigid hairs. This indicates that the species belongs to the family Ammotrechidae .

This species is here transferred to the genus Pseudocleobis , based on the presence of the following features in the holotype that distinguish this genus ( Mello-Leitão 1938; Maury 1976, 1980b): femur, tibia and metatarsus of pedipalp with long spiniform setae, which are longer than the pedipalp width; pedipalpal tarsus immovably fixed to metatarsus; chelicerae with fixed finger FM, FSD and FD teeth present; movable finger with MP, MSM and MM teeth only ( MPL tooth absent); tibia of legs II and III without dorso-apical spiniform seta; and tarsi of walking legs with lateroventral spiniform setae. To note, E.A. Maury had previously considered (in schedulam) this species a member of Pseudocleobis , as reported in a hand-written label that accompanies the type specimen, which reads “ Subf. Ammotrechinae / Pseudocleobis sp.? / Maury det. 1977 ”.

Cekalovic & Quezada (1969) reported the species Mummucia patagonica for Magallanes ( Chile), a record that was subsequently mentioned in other contributions ( Muma 1971, 1976; Cekalovic 1974, 1975, 1976; Harvey 2003). Apparently without having examined the specimen on whose basis that record was made, Muma (1971: 8) accurately noticed that it did not agree with the characters cited for the species by Roewer (1934). The conspecificity of Cekalovic & Quezada’s (1969: figs. 1–2) specimen and P. patagonicus (and consequently the record of this species for Chile) is not supported, since the striped coloration pattern and the lack of pedipalpal spiniform setae in the former indicate that it is indeed a mummuciid. The specific identity of that particular specimen remains uncertain.

Maury (1998: 568) considered Mummucia patagonica as doubtful (although he presumably knew that it was a Pseudocleobis , he never published the idea). Given that the holotype of P. patagonicus is an immature specimen lacking the characters used to distinguish between species, its taxonomic identity and relationships within Pseudocleobis are uncertain. In addition, the type locality, “Santa Cruz River, Patagonia”, is not precise enough as to define an area from which newly available specimens could help identify the species. This species, under the new combination name, is therefore herein proposed as a nomen dubium.

Figures

FIGURES 6 – 9. Pseudocleobis patagonicus (Roewer, 1934) comb. nov., immature holotype. 6. Right chelicera, retrolateral aspect. 7. Right chelicera, prolateral aspect. 8. Habitus, dorsal. 9. Right pedipalp, prolateral aspect (spiniform setae indicated by arrows). Scale bars = 1 mm (Figs. 6, 7, 9); 2 mm (Fig. 8).