Huasteca silhavyi, Cruz-López & Francke, 2015

Cruz-López, Jesús A. & Francke, Oscar F., 2015, Cladistic analysis and taxonomic revision of the genus Karos Goodnight & Goodnight, 1944 (Opiliones, Laniatores, Stygnopsidae), Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 175 (4), pp. 827-891 : 876-878

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.1111/zoj.12299
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10543457
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CA87F9-A264-FF9F-FE94-FD69C37BFDC1
treatment provided by	Felipe
scientific name	Huasteca silhavyi
status	sp. nov.

Treatment

HUASTECA SILHAVYI SP. NOV.

( FIGS 51–53 View Figure 51 View Figure 52 View Figure 53 , 59 View Figure 59 , 61D View Figure 61 , 62B View Figure 62 , 63B View Figure 63 , 64A View Figure 64 )

Karos rugosus: Šilhavý, 1974: 186 View in CoL , figs 22–26 (in part, misidentification); Mendes & Kury, 2007: 233, fig. 4.40C.

Type material: MEXICO: Veracruz: ♂ holotype, and 3 ♂ and 2 ♀ paratypes [ CNAN-T0801 and CNAN- T0802 (4.i.1974; J. Reddell, D. McKenzie, R. Jameson, and W. Elliott)] (18°55′35.47″N, 96°52′33.38″W). Municipio Amatlán de los Reyes, Cueva del Ojo de Agua Grande GoogleMaps .

Other material: 1 ♂ and 1 ♀ [ CNAN (13.iii.2007; P. Sprouse)], same data as types, not examined . 1 ♂ and two ♀, misidentified as Karos rugosus [ MCZR (5– 6.xi.1969; V. Sbordoni)], Córdoba , Paraje Nuevo, Cueva Ojo de Agua Grande, 550 m, not examined .

Diagnosis: Dorsum covered by small, rounded tubercles throughout ( Figs 51B View Figure 51 , 52B View Figure 52 ). Lateral clear areas projected in big, rounded, finger-shaped tubercles ( Fig. 52B View Figure 52 ). Trochanter III larger than the others ( Fig. 51A View Figure 51 ). Femur II noticeably swollen from middle to tip, patella and basal portion of tibia II swollen ( Fig. 52C View Figure 52 ). Male penis with ventral plate of pars distalis asymmetrical ( Fig. 53 View Figure 53 ).

Description: Male holotype: Measurements: scutum length 2.5, maximum scutum width 2.3. Legs. I 1.50/ 0.60/1.22/1.25, II 2.05/0.85/1.75/1.50, III 1.50/0.70/1.60/ 1.60, IV 2.27/0.75/1.80/2.10. Dorsum. Almost entire surface of dorsal areas covered by small, rounded tubercles, more densely in mesotergal areas III and IV, without prominent tubercles ( Fig. 52B View Figure 52 ). Sulcus between mesotergal areas inconspicuous. Lateral clear areas projected as very long tubercles, finger-shaped ( Fig. 52B View Figure 52 ). Clear areas projected in tubercles on apices of area V and free tergites I to III big, rounded. Venter. Entire surface sparsely covered by small tubercles. Coxa IV similar in length to the other coxae. Stigmatic area inverse ‘Y’-shaped, very wide, short, with lateral margins short and posteriorly divergent ( Fig. 51C View Figure 51 ). Free sternites with one median row of small tubercles. Pedipalps. Patella with two mesal spiniform tubercles. Legs. Covered by small rounded tubercles. Femur II swollen from middle to tip ( Fig. 52C View Figure 52 ). Patella and basal portion of tibia II swollen; these swollen areas lighter in colour than the rest of segment. Femur IV rounded in transversal view. Metatarsus II without annuli. Tarsal count 4(2):9(3):6:6. Male genitalia. Ventral plate short and noticeably asymmetrical, forming two lobes. The right lobe in dorsal view shorter than the left. Right margin of pars distalis in dorsal view with two slight concavities. Lateral setae thin, not arranged in pairs owing to asymmetry in the ventral plate, as long as half width of pars distalis. Two pairs of parastylar setae basal to follis. Three pairs of ventral microsetae, pairs not located at the same level owing to asymmetrical shape of ventral plate, basal-most pair separated from the rest. Lateral projection of follis lobate and pointed apically. Spiniform projections visible, not exposed, and located inside the follis ( Fig. 53 View Figure 53 ). Female: Measurements: scutum length: 2.5, maximum scutum width: 2.3. Similar to male, with the following differences: femur, patella and basal tibia II not swollen ( Fig. 52C View Figure 52 ) stigmatic area completely fused with coxae IV, ( Fig. 51C View Figure 51 ). Tarsal count 4(2):7/ 8(3):6:6.

Taxonomic accounts: Šilhavý (1974) misidentified this species as Karos rugosus , and illustrated and noted some differences with the original description. He illustrated the male genitalia ( Šilhavý, 1974: fig. 25), which are very similar to the SEM photos shown here ( Fig. 54 View Figure 54 ) in the asymmetrical shape of the ventral plate. Similarly to Goodnight & Goodnight, he did not mention anything about the apical portion of femur II being swollen in males, although this generic character is a lot more noticeable in this species than in Huasteca gratiosa .