Chileotrecha romero ( Kraus, 1966 ) Kraus, 1966

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 : 439

Chileotrecha romero ( Kraus, 1966) comb. nov.

( Figures 1–5 )

Mummucina romero Kraus, 1966: 182 –183, fig. 2; Cekalovic & Quezada, 1969: 176; Muma, 1971: 2, 3, 10–11 [in part]; Cekalovic, 1975: 131, 135 [in part]; Muma, 1976: 24 [in part]; Harvey, 2003: 291; González-Reyes & Corronca, 2013: 538, 539, 540; Botero-Trujillo, 2014: 320.

Mummucina cordoba: Used by Kraus (1966: 181, 182); as “ Mummicina [sic] cordoba ” in Kraus (1966: 181) (nomen nudum).

Dubious records (see Notes): Mummucina romero: Muma, 1971: 11 [in part], figs. 17–18; Cekalovic, 1975: 135 [in part]; Muma, 1976: 24 [in part].

Type material. Holotype (immature, examined); original label verbatim: “ Senckenberg-Mus. 17376/1 / Frankfurt-M. / Mummucina romero Kraus / 1♀ Holotypus / Chile: Romero / F. di Castri leg. 14.III.63 / O. Kraus ”. Paratypes (three immatures, examined); original label verbatim: “ Senckenberg-Mus. 17377/3 / Frankfurt-M. / Mummucina romero Kraus / 3♀ Paratypoide / Chile: Romero / F. di Castri leg. 14.III.63 / O. Kraus ”.

Notes. Mummucina romero was described by Kraus (1966) based on four specimens from “ Romero ,” Chile. In the species description, the author stated that the pedipalps had sparse hairs and lacked ‘spines’ ( Kraus 1966: 183). Whilst the male of this species is not yet known as to determine the flagellar morphology, its placement in Mummuciidae was never in doubt before.

The type material consists of a holotype and three paratypes, all of which were found to be immature upon examination. Apart from the coloration pattern which appears to have faded (mostly in the holotype and two paratypes), all the specimens are reasonably well preserved. The dorsal aspect of the abdomen is coloured brown-violaceous in all specimens, while the propeltidium and chelicerae are yellowish in all but one paratype, in which these are pigmented similarly as the abdomen. This coloration pattern is inconsistent with the placement of this species in Mummuciidae . Two other important features of the species, confounded or not addressed in the original description and here confirmed for the four specimens, are also conflictive: the presence of short ventral spiniform setae on pedipalpal segments and the absence of a comb of rigid hairs on post-spiracular sternite II. Even though the holotype retains some pedipalpal spiniform setae (mostly on metatarsi and tibiae), others have broken off leaving the corresponding insertion sockets visible. The paratypes closely resemble the morphology of the holotype and most of these spiniform setae are intact. On account of this, we propose that the species belongs to the family Ammotrechidae .

The species is here transferred to the genus Chileotrecha , considering that the types present the following features that match the revised diagnosis for the genus provided by Iuri et al. (2014): cheliceral fixed finger with FM, FSD and FD teeth present, and dorsal hump at this level; spiniform setae of pedipalpal femur, tibia and metatarsus shorter than the pedipalp width; pedipalp tarsus immovably fixed to metatarsus and without spiniform setae; tibia of legs II and III without dorso-apical spiniform seta; tarsus of leg IV bi-segmented, with pseudo segmentation on basal segment; and metatarsus of legs II and III with spinulation pattern 1.(1).1.(1).1, i.e., 1.1.1 retrodorsal spiniform setae intercalated with 1.1 retrolateral setae.

The specimens of Chileotrecha romero bear two pairs of ctenidia on spiracular sternite I at level of the spiracular openings. These have not, to date, been reported for any other species in the genus (see Maury 1987; Iuri et al. 2014). Despite the specimens being immature, this feature may be diagnostic for the species, but needs to be confirmed once additional congeneric specimens are available for study.

The exact type locality of C. romero cannot be determined since the original data available for the specimens [in Kraus’ (1966) description and in the specimens’ labels] are insufficient. González-Reyes & Corronca (2013: fig. 2) presented a map with the known distribution of mummuciid species, wherein that of C. romero (as ‘ Mummucina romero ’) was approximated to La Serena city, Coquimbo Region, Chile. While these authors did not provide supplementary comments regarding the information supplied in the map, we determined the existence of at least twelve “ Romero ” places in this Chilean region. The collector of the type specimens, Dr. Francesco di Castri, was an Italian ecologist who started his professional career in 1961, as professor and Director of the Institute of Animal Production at the Universidad de Santiago de Chile ( Naveh 2007). We consider also likely that the specimens could be from the Santiago Metropolitan Region (south to Coquimbo), although this might not be necessarily true. There too, however, six places named “ Romero ” could be identified. Our attempts to track the expeditions performed by Dr. di Castri in the year of collection of the specimens were unsuccessful; therefore, the type locality of C. romero remains uncertain.

Muma (1971) reported a female of Mummucina romero for Las Hedionditas (Coquimbo, Chile), a record that was subsequently referred in other contributions ( Cekalovic 1975; Muma 1976). This specimen, currently at the Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales “Bernardino Rivadavia” (Buenos Aires, Argentina), was examined by us and it proved to be also a Chileotrecha . However, Muma’s (1971) specimen does not presently have the ctenidia on spiracular sternite I referred above for C. romero , neither is there any indication that these are broken off. Therefore, it probably belongs to a different species of Chileotrecha .

Figures

FIGURES 1 – 5. Chileotrecha romero (Kraus, 1966) comb. nov., immature holotype. 1. Right chelicera, retrolateral aspect. 2. Right chelicera, prolateral aspect. 3. Habitus, dorsal. 4. Right pedipalp tibia, proventral aspect (spiniform setae indicated by arrows). 5. spiracular sternite I (ctenidia indicated by arrows). Scale bars = 500 µm (Figs. 1, 2, 4); 2 mm (Fig. 3); 150 µm (Fig. 5).