Phareicranaus calcariferus ( Simon, 1879 )

Pinto-Da-Rocha, Ricardo & Bonaldo, Alexandre B., 2011, Species relationships in the Neotropical genus Phareicranaus Roewer 1913 (Opiliones: Cranaidae): two new species and new data from Penial morphology, Zootaxa 3135, pp. 1-34 : 9-10

Phareicranaus calcariferus ( Simon, 1879)

( Fig. 5 A, B, 6 A, B)

Goniosoma calcariferum Simon, 1879: 232 . (Male holotype, MNHN, pinned in bad conditions, without locality data, photos examined).

Phareicranaus calcariferus ; Roewer, 1913: 402, fig. 159; Goodnight & Goodnight 1947: 7; Kury 2003: 96; Hunter et al. 2007: 199; Townsend et al 2008: 55 –57, figs. 1 J–L; 2009: 1056, figs. 1–9.

Santinezia serratotibialis Roewer, 1932: 291 , fig. 8 (three males and female syntypes “ Trinidad and Tobago, Trinidad, BMNH”, not examined); Pinto-da-Rocha & Kury 2003: 203; Kury 2003: 99; Machado & Warfel, 2006: 269, figs. 1, 2. Syn. n.

Phareicranaus cingulatus Roewer, 1932: 300 , fig. 16 (female holotype, “SMF-1441/52, Bolivia [ Trinidad & Tobago]: Trinidad ”, examined). Syn. n.

Note. The species was doubtfully attributed by Roewer (1913) to “? Colombia ” but in the original designation Simon (1879) stated “sans indication de provenance”. In fact, labels for the P. calcariferus holotype do not indicate any locality. Roewer (1932: 291) described Santinezia serratotibialis from Trinidad and Tobago, wrongly cited as “ BOLIVIA: ‘Trindad’” in the original description (Pinto-da-Rocha & Kury 2003); and, in the same paper (p. 300), Roewer mysteriously described its female as Phareicranaus cingulatus , also from Trinidad, and also attributed erroneously to a Bolivian city of same name. Roewer wrongly sexed P. cingulatus as male, which led him to propose it in a different genus, even though he described it with a similar color pattern as P. calcariferus . Later, Goodnight and Goodnight (1947) recognized P. calcariferus from material collected in Trinidad. Townsend et al. (2008) stated that “male Phareicranaus calcariferus are smaller in total body size (7.4–9.6 mm) than Santinezia serratotibialis (9.6–11.9 mm) and also lack spines on ventral surface of coxae IV. Males S. serratotibialis have more prominent spines in femur IV”. Townsend et al. (2009) studied the postembryonic development of S. serratotibialis and P. calcariferus and concluded that both have 6 nymphal stages and that growth rates for nymphs are the same. Specimens examined by Goodnight and Goodnight (1947) and by Townsend and collaborators (2008; 2009) are probably beta males (for discussion on intrasexual variation in Laniatores see Machado et al. 2009 and Ferreira & Kury 2010) of P. calcariferus , based on weak armature of the body and legs (compare Fig. 6 A, B).

Diagnosis. See Pinto-da-Rocha & Kury (2003: 203). Live specimens in Fig. 5 A, B.

Other material examined. Trinidad. Petite Tacarib, Crappo-cocorite seasonal Forest, elevation 0–10m, 10°47’38”N, 61°13’32”W, 1 male ( AMNH); Mount Tamana, seasonal forest, elevation 150–305m, 1028’’5”N, 6111’50”W, 1 male ( AMNH); Mount Aripu, 3 males ( AMNH).

Figures

FIGURE 5. Live specimens of Phareicranaus calcariferus collected in Trinidad. A, male; B, female. Photo: Ricardo Pinto-da- Rocha.

FIGURE 6. Lateral view of two males of Phareicranaus calcariferus. A, attributed to Santinezia serratotibialis (AMNH); B, attributed to P. calcariferus (AMNH).