Acumontia majori 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

http://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.210296

publication LSID

lsid:zoobank.org:pub:28EA6439-289E-4CBB-B427-397F6A4B54C0

persistent identifier

http://treatment.plazi.org/id/AC3E87F8-690A-4E15-FF47-F96A169BBD6D

treatment provided by

Plazi

scientific name

Acumontia majori Pocock, 1902
status

 

Acumontia majori Pocock, 1902 

( Figs. 3View 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.

Kingdom

Animalia

Phylum

Arthropoda

Class

Arachnida

Order

Opiliones

Family

Triaenonychidae

Genus

Acumontia

Loc

Acumontia majori Pocock, 1902

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

Acumontia majori

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

Acumontia

Pocock 1903: 443
1903