Smeringopus rubrotinctus Strand, 1913

Huber, Bernhard A., 2012, 3461, Zootaxa 3461, pp. 1-138: 13-17

publication ID

publication LSID


persistent identifier

treatment provided by


scientific name

Smeringopus rubrotinctus Strand, 1913


Smeringopus rubrotinctus Strand, 1913  

Figs. 18, 24, 28–29, 38–41, 59–64

Smeringopus rubrotinctus Strand 1913: 343–344   .

Types. 1♂ 1♀ syntypes from Rwanda, Rugege Forest [=Nyungwe Forest, 2°29’S, 29°15’E], 1800 m a.s.l., 20.viii.1907 (not 1902 as on labels) (H. Schubotz, Expedition Adolf-Friedrich Herzog zu Mecklenburg), in ZMB (9866), examined GoogleMaps   .

Diagnosis. Distinguished from similar congeners (other species of the rubrotinctus   group) by shapes of procursus and embolus ( Figs. 59–63); from most (except S. bwindi   ) also by deeply indented epigynum ( Figs. 38–41); from most other congeners by long apophyses on male chelicerae ( Fig. 24; very similar S. ruhiza   ).

Male (syntype). Total body length 6.7, carapace width 2.3. Leg 1: 46.5 (11.9 + 0.8 + 12.0 + 18.7 + 3.1), tibia 2: 9.1, tibia 3: 7.3, tibia 4: 9.9; tibia 1 L/d: 50. Habitus similar S. ruhiza   (cf. Fig. 20). Syntype entirely pale; color pattern of male from Burundi: carapace mostly brown with darker margins and large whitish marks beside ocular area, clypeus with barely visible pair of darker lines, sternum dark brown, leg femora and tibiae with dark subdistal rings and light tips, abdomen dorsally with indistinct pattern, ventrally with three dark lines behind gonopore (median line narrow). Distance PME-PME 185 µm, diameter PME 185 µm, distance PME-ALE 125 µm, distance AME-AME 70 µm, diameter AME 135 µm. Ocular area slightly elevated, secondary eyes with indistinct ‘pseudolenses’; deep but small thoracic pit. Chelicerae as in Fig. 24 (very similar S. ruhiza   ). Palps as in Figs. 28 and 29, coxa with indistinct bulge, trochanter barely modified, femur with deep retrolateral furrow with distinct rim proximally, cymbium without projection near tarsal organ, procursus with distinctive tip with ventral bifid apophysis and whitish prolateral process ( Figs. 59–61), bulb with relatively simple branched embolus ( Figs. 62, 63). All hairs missing in syntype; retrolateral trichobothrium on tibia 1 at 2.5%; prolateral trichobothrium present on tibia 1; male from Burundi (legs 1 missing): legs without spines, few vertical hairs, with curved hairs on tibiae and metatarsi 2.

Variation. The male from Burundi is smaller than the syntype (tibia 2: 6.9) but has identical palpal structures and chelicerae.

Female. In general similar to male; tibia 1 in 3 females: 9.3, 10.8, 11.1. Epigynum anterior plate with large indentation ( Figs. 38–40; very similar S. bwindi   ), without pockets; posterior plate simple, not projecting; internal genitalia as in Figs. 41 and 64.

Distribution. Known from Rwanda and northern Burundi ( Fig. 58).

Material examined. RWANDA: Rugege Forest : 1♂ 1♀ syntypes above. Marais de Mukokola, Forêt de Rugege, 2250 m a.s.l., 11.–17.viii.1949 (Laurent), 2♀ (2 vials) in MRAC (66539, 66572)   . Karisimbi [~ 1°35’S, 29°30’E], xi.1907 (Schubotz), forest at 2500 m a.s.l., 1♀ in ZMB GoogleMaps   (9867).

BURUNDI: Parc National de la Kibira , Rwegura, Mt. Musumba [~ 2°55’S, 29°31’E], site 2, forest with Hagenia abyssinica   , 2100 m a.s.l., 25.vii.2008 (N. Benoit), 1♂ in MRAC (226403) GoogleMaps   ; same data, 1♀ in MRAC GoogleMaps   (226399).


Museum für Naturkunde Berlin (Zoological Collections)


Musée Royal de l’Afrique Centrale














Smeringopus rubrotinctus Strand, 1913

Huber, Bernhard A. 2012

Smeringopus rubrotinctus

Strand, E. 1913: 344