Pseudocellus

Valdez-Mondragón, Alejandro & Francke, Oscar F., 2013, Two new species of ricinuleids of the genus Pseudocellus (Arachnida: Ricinulei: Ricinoididae) from southern Mexico, Zootaxa 3635 (5), pp. 545-556 : 546-547

Key to adult males of Pseudocellus species from Mexico and USA

1 Troglomorphic species with all appendages elongated ( Fig. 14 ): femur II at least 1.5× longer than carapace; tibia II longer than carapace............................................................................................. 2

- Edaphomophic species with short appendages ( Fig. 1 ): femur II less than 1.5× carapace length; tibia II shorter than carapace..................................................................................................... 9

2 Femur II length/width ratio greater than 9; femur II over twice as long as carapace.................................. 3

- Femur II length/width ratio less than 9; femur II less than twice as long as carapace................................. 6

3 Cheliceral fingers with 5 teeth.................................................... P. reddelli (Durango, Mexico)

- Cheliceral fingers with more than 5 teeth.................................................................. 4

4. Leg formula 2413; tibia II twice as long as patella II................................. P. sbordonii (Chiapas, Mexico)

- Leg formula 2431; tibia II less than twice as long as patella II.................................................. 5

5 Tibia I with a granulose prolateral hump (Valdez-Mondragón & Francke 2011, figs. 24, 26); tibia II and tarsus II unarmed.............................................................................. P. platnicki (Coahuila, Mexico)

- Tibia I without a granulose prolateral hump (Valdez-Mondragón & Francke 2011, fig. 17); tibia II and tarsus II with two dis- tinct rows of spines prodorsally and proventrally (Valdez-Mondragón & Francke 2011, fig. 19)... P. oztotl (Puebla, Mexico)

6 Leg formula 2341; cheliceral fixed finger with 4 teeth; tarsal claws asymmetrical, some spatulate.................................................................................................... P. bolivari (Chiapas, Mexico)

- Leg formula 2431; cheliceral fixed finger with 5 or 6 teeth; tarsal claws symmetrical, none spatulate.................. 7

7 Tibia II elongated, around 11× longer than wide, with scattered spines or scattered granules prolaterally................. 8

- Tibia II shorter, around 6× longer than wide, with two distinct rows of spines prolaterally...... P. boneti (Guerrero, Mexico)

8 Tibia II with a few scattered spines prolaterally; cheliceral movable finger with teeth uniform in size............................................................................................ P. osorioi (San Luis Potosí, Mexico)

- Tibia II without scattered spines, only with numerous granules prolaterally ( Fig. 17 ); cheliceral movable finger with teeth lon- ger basally than distally ( Fig. 18 )...................................... P. monjarazi new species (Chiapas, Mexico)

9 Tibia II armed with one or two distinct tubercles prolaterally (Valdez-Mondragón & Francke 2011, fig. 3).............. 10

- Tibia II without distinct tubercles prolaterally ( Figs 4, 5 ).................................................... 12

10 Femur II moderately thickened, 4× longer than wide; tibia II with a single prodorsal tubercle, lacking a distinct proventral tubercle....................................................................... P. pearsei (Yucatán, Mexico)

- Femur strongly thickened, less than 2.5× longer than wide; tibia II with prodorsal and proventral tubercles subequal in size..................................................................................................... 11

11 Femur II shorter than carapace; tibia II with prodorsal and proventral tubercles aligned, situated medially........................................................................................... P. spinotibialis (Chiapas, Mexico)

- Femur II distinctly longer than carapace; tibia II with tubercles not aligned, proventral tubercle in basal third, and prodorsal one in distal third (Valdez-Mondragón & Francke 2011, figs. 1, 3)....... P. chankin (Chiapas, Mexico; Petén, Guatemala)

12 Leg formula 2431; carapace and opisthosoma distinctly and evenly pitted....................................... 13

- Leg formula 2341; integument not distinctly pitted......................................................... 14

13 Adult 3.2 mm in total length; tibia II slightly over 0.5× carapace length; patella II and tibia II subequal in length.......................................................................................... P. do ro thea e (Texas, USA)

- Adult 5.0 mm in total length; tibia II almost equal to carapace length; tibia II 1.5× longer than patella II............................................................................................. P. mitchelli (Durango, Mexico)

14 Femora I and IV conspicuously enlarged, at least 1.5× thicker than preceding and following segments............................................................................................... P. gertschi (Veracruz, Mexico)

- Femora I and IV not enlarged, about same thickness as preceding and following segments ( Fig. 1 ).................... 15

15 Femur II thickened ( Fig. 1 ), around 2.5× longer than wide; tibia II at least 1.5× length of patella II................... 16

- Femur II not thickened, slightly over 4× longer than wide; tibia II 1.2× longer than patella II.................................................................................................. P. pelaezi (San Luis Potosi, Mexico)

16 Tarsal process of leg III narrow, with two tips distally (Valdez-Mondragón & Francke 2011, figs 13–14).............................................................................................. P. jaroch o (Chiapas, Mexico)

- Tarsal process of leg III wide, ending in a single, long, thin and sharp tip ( Figs 10–12 )................................................................................................ P. cruzlopezi new species (Oaxaca, Mexico)

Figures

FIGURES 14 – 20. Pseudocellus monjarazi sp. nov., male holotype (unless otherwise indicated). 14, Habitus, dorsal view; 15, Prosoma, ventral view; 16, Cucullus, dorsal view; 17, Right tibia II, dorsal view; 18, Left chelicera, dorsal view; 19, Spermathecae of female paratype, anterior view; 20, Spermathecae of female paratype, posterior view. Scales: 1 mm (Figs. 14 – 17), 0.4 mm (Figs. 19 – 20), 0.5 mm (Fig. 18).

FIGURES 1 – 7. Pseudocellus cruzlopezi sp. nov., male holotype (unless otherwise indicated). 1, Habitus, dorsal view; 2, Prosoma, ventral view; 3, Cucullus, dorsal view; 4 – 5, Right tibia II, dorsal and dorsal-prolateral views respectively; 6, Spermathecae of female paratype, anterior view; 7, Spermathecae of female paratype, posterior view. Scales: 1 mm (Figs. 1 – 2), 0.5 mm (Figs. 3 – 5), 0.4 mm (Figs. 6 – 7).

FIGURES 8 – 13. Pseudocellus cruzlopezi sp. nov., male holotype. 8, Left leg III, metatarsal process, prolateral view; 9, Tarsal claws of leg III; 10, Copulatory apparatus of left leg III, prolateral view (arrows indicate the pores on basal part of metatarsus); 11, Lamina of tarsomere 2 of left leg III, retrolateral view; 12, Tarsal process of copulatory apparatus, apical view; 13, Copulatory apparatus of left leg III, retrolateral view (arrows indicates the pores on basal part of metatarsus). Scales: 100 µm (Figs. 9, 12), 200 µm (Fig. 8, 11), 500 µm (Figs. 10, 13).