Eremocosta formidabilis ( Simon 1879 )

Cushing, Paula E., Channiago, Felix & Brookhart, Jack O., 2018, Revision of the camel spider genus Eremocosta Roewer and a description of the female Eremocosta gigas Roewer (Arachnida, Solifugae), Zootaxa 4402 (3), pp. 443-466 : 455-456

Eremocosta formidabilis ( Simon 1879)

Figs. 1C , 2I & J , 3C , 5C

Datames formidabilis Simon 1879: 136 –138, figs. 17–19, 25–26.

Datames affinis Kraepelin 1899 (misidentification in part, see Eremobates affinis ( Kraepelin 1899a) : 242–243, figs. 20a–b. Datames cfr . formidabilis Simon 1879 : Kraepelin 1899b: 378.

Eremobates formidabilis ( Simon 1879) : Banks 1900: 427.

Eremoperna formidabilis ( Simon 1879) : Roewer 1934: 561, figs. 322b, 323c, 324d. Eremorhax formidabilis ( Simon 1879) : Muma 1970: 4 –5, figs. 1–2.

Eremopus formidabilis ( Simon 1879) : Muma 1989: 5.

Eremocosta formidabilis ( Simon 1879) : Harvey 2002: 451.

Type material. Male type from Guanajuata, México, No. 1805 (Roewer No. 9130), deposited in Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France. The female and young with the type are not conspecific ( Muma 1970). Muma’s examination of types found a female paratype labeled “Arkansas” in Zoologisches Staatsinstitut und Zoologisches Museum in Hamburg, Germany he thought to be conspecific. The locality is apparently incorrect. If it refers to a locality in the United States then it is unlikely to be the female of E. formidabilis . The female chelicera is illustrated as fig. 2, p. 13 in Muma (1970) but no description is provided (see Muma 1970, p. 16). It is not a typical Eremocosta female dentition. We were not able to examine the type of E. formidabilis but were able to examine males of this species from localities near the type locality: male from San Luis Potosi, México (Texas Tech University) and a male from Durango, México and San Luis Potosi, México (IBUNAM).

Specimens examined. Males (2). MÉXICO: Durango, Ciudad de Durango, DAO, N 24.051000°, W 104.610200°, 1890 m elev., 15 February 2005, no coll. ( IBUNAM CNAN no number) ; MÉXICO: San Luis Potosí, Salinas , N 22.627610°, W 101.716498°, 2077 m elev., 20 June 1970, coll. G. Cárlos ( IBUNAM +CNAN- Sol 00006).

Diagnosis. E. formidabilis is easily distinguished from all other Eremocosta by the location of the VDC which lies proximally instead of distally on the ventral edge of the male fixed finger ( Fig. 1C ). It is also smaller than others and the dark tips of the pedipalps are also distinctive.

Measurements (n = 2). TL 22.0, 30.0; CL 6.6, 10.0; CH 2.8, 4.7; FNL 0.3, 0.5; FNH 0.3, 0.5; FFH 0.8, 1.3; PL 17.0, 23.0; PT 1.4, 2.7; PMT 5.7, 11.5; LI 11.0, 13.0; LIV 16.5, 16.5; PPL 4.0, 4.3; A/CP 4.2; FNL/FNH 1.0, 1.0; FFH/FNH 2.8, 2.8; FFH/ CH 0.3, 0.3.

Description. Coloration. Overall coloration pale, palpal tarsus, metatarsus, and inner surface of tibia dark brown; LIII and LIV with similar but lighter coloration on tibia-femur joint area; propeltidium coloration pale ( Fig. 5C ).

Chelicera. Chelicera as in Muma (1970, p. 13, fig. 1–2). VDC proximally located ( Fig. 1C ). Neither Roewer (1934) nor Muma (1970) mentioned or illustrated this unique position of the VDC. Fixed finger with no median dentition. Movable finger: large MP-three MSM attached to MP; distinct MPL ( Figs. 2I & J ). Fondal notch narrow, longer than wide ( Fig. 2I ). Two tiny RFA; fondal teeth I, III, II, IV prolaterally and retrolaterally ( Fig. 3C ).

Setation. Dorsal setal complex typical tubular; pvd extend to top of fondal tooth I; mpd a proximal patch. A few, tiny, scattered bacilli on coxa of LI. Pedipalps with scattered, long, thin setae, and shorter, thicker setae. Palpal tibia with a series of strong setae basally on the mesal surface. No visible paired setae.

Distribution. This is a Chihuahuan Desert inhabitant whose range includes Guanajuato, San Luis Potosi, and Durango, México.

Discussion. Putnam’s (1883), Roewer’s (1934), and Muma’s (1970) descriptions are adequate. Two tiny RFA in fondal notch ( Fig. 3C ). Roewer (1934) indicates 4 ctenidia but Muma (1970), in examining the type, found no ctenidia. The two males that we examined had no ctenidia.

Figures

FIGURE 1. VDC on the fixed finger of the right chelicera of male Eremocosta. Refer to Figure 2 for scale. A) Eremocosta bajaensis (holotype from CAS).B) Eremocosta calexicensis (holotype from USNM).C) Eremocosta formidabilis (IBUNAM). Note the more proximal locationof the VDC on the fixed finger of thisspecies.D) Eremocosta gigas (holotype from SMK).E) Eremocosta gigasella (DMNS ZA.35465). F) Eremocosta striata (DMNS ZA.21079). G) Eremocosta titania (DMNS ZA.15427).Arrows point to an internal carina in the VDC of some species.

FIGURE 2. Retrolateral (left) and prolateral (right) cheliceral views of the right chelicera of Eremocosta species. Scale bars = 1.0 mm. See text for collection abbreviations. A & B) Eremocosta bajaensis male (holotype from CAS). C & D) Eremocosta bajaensis female (IBUNAM). E & F) Eremocosta calexicensis male (holotype from USNM). G & H) Eremocosta calexicensis female (allotype from USNM). I & J) Eremocosta formidabilis male (IBUNAM). K & L) Eremocosta gigas male (holotype from SMK). M & N) Eremocosta gigas female (IBUNAM CNAN Sol00114). O &P) Eremocosta gigasella male (DMNS ZA.35465). Q & R) Eremocosta gigasella female (DMNS ZA.17350). S & T) Eremocosta striata male (DMNS ZA.21079). U & V) Eremocosta striata female (DMNS ZA.25451). W & X) Eremocosta titania male (DMNS ZA.15427). Y & Z) Eremocosta titania female (DMNS ZA.36256).Arrows in K, O, and S point to MD tooth (see text).

FIGURE 3. Fondal teeth on right fixed fingers of male specimens illustrated in Fig. 2. See Fig. 2 for scale. A) Eremocosta bajaensis (holotype from CAS).B) Eremocosta calexicensis (holotype from USNM).C) Eremocosta formidabilis (IBUNAM). D) Eremocosta gigas holotype from SMK). E) Eremocosta gigasella (DMNS ZA.35465). F) Eremocosta striata (DMNS ZA.21079).G) Eremocosta titania (DMNS ZA.15427).

FIGURE 5. Propeltidia of specimens illustrated in Fig. 2. Scale bars = 1.0 mm. A) Eremocosta bajaensis male (holotype from CAS). B) Eremocosta calexicensis male (holotype from USNM). C) Eremocosta formidabilis male (IBUNAM). D) Eremocosta gigas male (holotype from SMK). E) Eremocosta gigas female (IBUNAM CNAN Sol00114). F) Eremocosta gigasella male (DMNS ZA.35465). G) Eremocosta striata male (DMNS ZA.21079). H) Eremocosta titania male (DMNS ZA.15427).