Acumontia majori Pocock, 1902, Pocock, 1902

Mendes, Amanda C. & Kury, Adriano B., 2012, Notes on the systematics of the Triaenonychinae from Madagascar with description of a new species of Acumontia Loman (Opiliones: Laniatores), Zootaxa 3593, pp. 40-58: 44-46

publication ID 10.5281/zenodo.210296

publication LSID


persistent identifier

treatment provided by


scientific name

Acumontia majori Pocock, 1902


Acumontia majori Pocock, 1902  

( Figs. 3 View FIGURE 3 A–B, 13)

Acumontia majori Pocock 1902: 407   , figs. 83 A–A 2 (part, 3 only); Roewer 1915: 117, fig. 29; Roewer 1923: 610, fig. 765; Lawrence 1959: 60; Staręga 1992: 280.

Acumontia Majori   [sic.]: Pocock 1903: 443.

Type data. 3 lectotype, ( BMNH, examined), from MADAGASCAR, [FIANARANTSOA], Ambohimitombo.

Notes. Pocock (1902) described this species based on 2 specimens, which he deemed with doubt to be a male (smaller specimen, “probably not quite adult”) and a female (larger one, with metatarsal notch). He provided illustrations of the lateral habitus and metatarsal notch of this larger specimen. Later, Pocock (1903) noticed that his initial sex determination was inverted and that those were representative of two species: “but the example described as the male is the female, and vice versa. Moreover, the evidence supplied by other species does not justify the opinion that the very considerable structural differences between these two are merely attributable to sex. External sexual characters in the genus Acumontia   and other genera of Triaenonychidae   are usually slight as compared with what obtains in some of the Mecostethous Opiliones   . Hence I feel compelled to regard the two specimens in question as representatives of distinct species.” He chose the (true) male as lectotype of A. majori   , while the female became the holotype of A. roberti   . Roewer (1915; 1923) limited himself to repeat the main illustration of Pocock, without seeing the types. Lawrence (1959) and Staręga (1992) have not seen the types either and only repeated the original information. No further specimen has been reported.

Diagnosis. Differs from A. pococki   and A. rostrata   by the tubercles of anterior margin of carapace much smaller than cheliceral sockets. Differs from A. hispida   , A. horrida   , A. nigra   , A. roeweri   , A. soerenseni   , A. spinifrons   and A. venator   by having the apophysis of ocularium unbranched. Differs from A. armata   , A. echinata   and A. pococki   by the spines of area III contiguous at base. Differs from A. alluaudi   , A. capitata   , A. cowani   , A.

flavispina   , A. hispida   , A. horrida   , A. hystrix   , A. longipes   , A. milloti   , A. remyi   and A. succinea   sp. nov. by the shape of the two ventro-basal apophyses of the femur of pedipalps blunt instead of spiniform. Differs from A. alluaudi   , A. flavispina   , A. hispida   , A. horrida   and A. succinea   sp. nov. by having five tarsomeres in tarsus I of male. Very similar to A. roberti   , differing by the trochanter of pedipalp dorsally unarmed, and by the small tubercles on the anterior margin of carapace.














Acumontia majori Pocock, 1902

Mendes, Amanda C. & Kury, Adriano B. 2012


Pocock 1903: 443

Acumontia majori

Starega 1992: 280
Lawrence 1959: 60
Roewer 1923: 610
Roewer 1915: 117
Pocock 1902: 407