Mastigoproctus giganteus ( Lucas, 1835 )

Barrales-Alcalá, Diego, 2018, Systematic Revision Of The Giant Vinegaroons Of The Mastigoproctus Giganteus Complex (Thelyphonida: Thelyphonidae) Of North America, Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2018 (418), pp. 1-64 : 10-12

Mastigoproctus giganteus ( Lucas, 1835)

Thelyphonus giganteus Lucas, 1835 : unpaginated, pl. 8; Lamarck, 1838: 117; C.L. Koch, 1843: 21, 22, figs. 767, 768; Gervais, 1844: 12; C.L. Koch, 1850: 85; Wood, 1863: 374; Butler, 1872: 201; Marx, 1888: 42; 1892: 252–254; 1893: 54, 55.

Thelyphonus excubitor Girard, 1854: 236–238 , pl. XVII, figs. 1–4 (synonymized by Wood, 1863: 374).

Thelyphonus rufus Butler, 1872: 205 , 206, fig. 8 (synonymized by Pocock, 1894: 130).

Thelyphonus (?) rufus: Tarnani, 1890: 538 .

Thelyphonus (?) giganteus: Tarnani, 1890: 538 .

Mastigoproctus giganteus: Pocock, 1894: 130 ; Kraepelin, 1897: 37, 38, figs. 10b, 38b; Lönnberg, 1897: 190; Banks, 1898: 289; Kraepelin, 1899: 224 (part); Banks, 1900: 422 (part); Kraepelin, 1901: 263; Pocock, 1902a: 47, pl. X, figs. 1–4; 1902b: 170, figs. 40a, 41a, b; 1902c: figs. 2, 9; Werner, 1902: 606; Börner, 1904: 5, text figs. 9a, b, 19, 60, figs. 4, 6, 49, 50, 56–58, 61, 97; Tarnani, 1905: xi; Comstock, 1913: 19, fig. 14 (part); Petrunkevitch, 1913: pp, fig. 17; Patten, 1917: 251–275, figs. 1, 3, 4; Bradley, 1919: 435, 437, fig. 2; Barrows, 1925: 500, figs. 34, 35; Franganillo, 1930: 92 (misidentification); 1931: 48 (misidentification); Mello-Leitão, 1931: 27, fig. 11; Kästner, 1932: figs. 19, 37, 65; Werner, 1935: 468, figs. 21a, 27, 37, 42, 43, 52, 66, 75, 80, 97; Snodgrass, 1948: 11, 27–31, figs. 4a, 5b, 9a–h; Gertsch, 1949: 17; Millot, 1949a: fig. 49; 1949b: figs. 287, 290, 292a, b, 294a, b, 297a, b, 298, 299; Petrunkevitch, 1949: figs. 1, 2, 31, 33, 43–46, 49–52 (part); 1952: 5, fig. 1 (part); Henry, 1954: 2, 3, figs. 1, 2;

Petrunkevitch, 1955: figs. 33(2), 84(2); Janetschek, 1957: figs. 5, 6; Eisner et al., 1961: 272–297, figs. 1–22 (part); Savory, 1964: 166 (part); Waterhouse, and Gilby. 1964: 986; Roth and Eisner, 1962: 112, 115, 120; Kästner, 1965: fig. 514; Barr and Reddell, 1967: 259; Cloudsley-Thompson, 1968: 146–148; Kästner, 1968: 117, 119, figs. 10(1); Legendre, 1968: 36, fig. 27; Levi et al., 1968: 116, fig.; Peters, 1968: 337, fig. 1C; Besch, 1969: 730, fig. 6; Horne, 1969: 155–159; Weygoldt, 1969: 353, 356, fig. 8; Reddell, 1971: 28; Crawford, 1972: 531; Weygoldt, 1972a: 23, 29, 34, 45, figs. 3a–c, 6b, 7a–d, 13b; 1972b: figs. 5a–e, 6; Firstman, 1973: 5, 22, 23, figs. 14, 15; Rowland and Cooke, 1973: 68; Cutler and Richards, 1974: 1394; Weygoldt, 1975a: 311; 1975b: figs. 2a–e, 5a–c; Phillips, 1976: 397, 398, fig. 1; Ase, 1978: 238, 241, figs. 21–23; Yogi and Haupt, 1977: 53, 55; Cloudsley-Thompson, 1978: 186, 188; García Acosta, 1980: 43; Haupt et al., 1980: 205–213, figs. 1–8; Levi, 1982: 74, pl. 94; Courtens et al., 1983: 238; Homann, 1985: 70; Itokawa et al., 1985: 65, 66; Ahmed et al., 1986: 296, 301; Haupt et. al., 1988: 883; Shultz, 1989: 11, figs. 1d, 5d, 9d, 15d; Coddington et al., 1990: 11; Crawford, 1990: 432–434, fig. 16.5; Meinwald, 1990: 27; Weygoldt, 1990: 84, 85, figs. 2C, 2E; Selden et al., 1991: 245, fig. 5; Shultz, 1992a: 148–150, figs. 1, 2; 1993: 335–365, figs. 1, 2a–c, 3a, b, 4a–d, 5a, b, 6, 7a, b, 8, 9a, b; Wheeler et al., 1993: 20; Dunlop, 1994: 267; Caycho, 1994: 171; Ruppert and Barnes, 1994: 633, 634, figs. 13–13; Meinwald and Eisner, 1995: 14, fig. 1C; Vázquez-Rojas, 1995: 35, 36; Wheeler, 1995: 324, table 1, figs. 2, 8a, 8b, 8c, 9; Vázquez-Rojas, 1996: 67–69; Wheeler, 1996: 5; Regier and Shultz, 1997: 905; Wheeler, 1997: 89; Farris and Källersjö, 1998: 165; Selden and Dunlop, 1998: 293, 294; Wheeler and Hayashi, 1998: 179; Shultz, 1999: 82, 88: Punzo, 2000: 385–387; Alberti, 2000: 213, fig. 5a; Ax, 2000: 104, figs. 47b–g; Klompen, 2000: 808; Shultz, 2000: 403, 404; Coddington and Colwell, 2001: 211; Giribet et al., 2001: 158; Dunlop and Martill, 2002: 329, 332, figs. 5a, b; Giribet et al., 2002: 14; Weis and Melzer, 2012: 364, 365; Weygoldt, 2002: 466–468, fig. 634; Harvey, 2003: 66; Attygalle et al., 2004: 581; Haupt, 2004: 159, figs. 3a–d; Haupt and Müller, 2004: 579, 580; Giribet et al., 2005: 323; Punzo and Olsen, 2005: 206– 211; Ballesteros and Francke, 2006: 156–161; Hassanin, 2006: 101, 103, 113; Punzo, 2006: 266–268; Dunlop et al., 2007: 125; Jones et al., 2007: 586, 588; Klompen et al., 2007: 940; Bourlat et al., 2008: 25; Huff et al., 2008: 1–9; Masta and Boore, 2008: 950, 953; Regier et al., 2008: 923; Schönhofer and Martens, 2008: 526; Beccaloni, 2009: 111, 117, 120, 122, 123, 125, 126, figs. unnumbered 112, 118; Carrel and Britt, 2009: 500–502, figs. 1–4; Haupt, 2009: 14–16, figs. 1, 4, 10; Kern and Mitchell, 2011: 2, 4, figs. 1–5 (part); Klimov and OConnor, 2009: 604, 605; Giribet et al., 2010: 413; Ferreira et al., 2011: 8, 10; Heethoff et al., 2011: 1041; Rehm et al., 2012: 3, 5, 11, fig. 1; Van den Borne et al., 2012: 447; Armas, 2013: 91–94; Hembree, 2013: 141–162 (part); Kropf, 2013: 43–56; Lamsdell, 2013: 1–27; Marchioro et al., 2013: 580–603; McMonigle, 2013: figs. unnumbered 69–76, 101 (part); Schmerge et al., 2013: 116–128; Borner et al., 2014: 79–87; Raguraman and Kannan, 2014: 173–205; Redmond, 2014: 120; Sharma and Giribet, 2014: 255; Sharma and Wheeler, 2014: 57; Sharma et al., 2014: 2964, 2966, 2980, fig. 1I; Teruel and Rodriguez-Cabrera, 2014: 115– 117; Ferreira, 2015: 3; Hils and Hembree, 2015: 1–62, fig. 4(3); Karasawa et al., 2015: 352–363; Nguyen and Hermansen, 2015: 81–94 (misidentification); Shear, 2015: 78–117; Wolff and Strausfeld, 2015: 38–44, fig. 2(1); Yamasaki et al., 2015: 18; Barrales- Alcalá et al., 2016: 26, 46, figs. 1A–D; Cabezas-Cruz et al., 2016: 303–319; Pinto dos

Santos et al., 2016: 1179–1193; Fernandez et al., 2016: 874, 877, fig. 2; Gomes and Palma, 2016: 3–19; Hembree, 2016: 262–297, figs.

2B, 4D, 7A–E; Klussmann-Fricke and Wirkner, 2016: 1084–1103; Lerma et al., 2016: 293–298; Miether and Dunlop, 2016: 103–119, fig. 5K; Monjaraz-Ruedas et al., 2016: 118–134, fig. 6A, B (part); Starrett et al., 2016; Watari and Komine, 2016: 49–54; Clouse et al., 2017: 2, 5–7, fig. 1d; Cruz-García et al., 2017: 705, 706; Gallant and Hochberg, 2017: 7, 8, 11, figs. 2, 3, 6; Nurhayati et al., 2017: 33, 35, 38; Sabroux et al., 2017: 5, 29; Grams et al., in press: 5, 8, 20, 33, figs. 1, 5, 9.

Mastigoproctus giganteus giganteus: Pocock, 1902c: 47 ; Harvey, 2003: 67; Barrales-Alcalá et al., 2016: 26, 46, fig. 2A–D.

TYPE MATERIAL: Thelyphonus giganteus : holotype ♀, Mexico (Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris) [not examined]. Thelyphonus excubitor : holotype ♀, Red River, “Louisiana” (Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris?) [not examined]. Thelyphonus rufus : holotype ♀ (Natural History Museum, London?) [not examined].

DIAGNOSIS: Mastigoproctus giganteus resembles M. floridanus and M. tohono , sp. nov., from which it differs as follows. The carapace epistoma is visible in dorsal aspect in M. giganteus but not in M. tohono . Spines S1–S5 on the prodorsal margin of the pedipalp trochanter of the adult male are all sharply pointed in M. giganteus whereas spines S4 and S5 are blunt in M. floridanus and M. tohono . The punctures on the retrolateral surface of the pedipalp femur are markedly cristulate, providing a rugose texture in M. giganteus , whereas the punctures are weakly cristulate in M. tohono , and not cristulate in M. floridanus .

DESCRIPTION: The following description is based on five males and four females.

Total length: Maximum length from anterior margin of carapace to posterior margin of opistho- somal segment XII (pygidium) in adult specimens 60.1 mm (♂) and 62.4 mm (♀) (table 1).

Color: Carapace dark reddish brown, anterior and lateral margins dark brown. Tergites I–IX dark reddish brown, posterior and lateral margins darker. Sternite I dark reddish brown; II and III light brown; IV–IX and pygidium dark reddish brown. Flagellum brown, segments with reddishbrown macrosetae. Pedipalp trochanter, femur, patella, and tibia dark reddish brown, mesal surfaces with reddish macrosetae; patellar apophysis, fixed finger, and basitarsus blackish, with few reddish macrosetae. Legs I–IV reddish brown; II–IV coxae, ventral surfaces reddish brown.

Carapace: Epistoma visible in dorsal aspect. Pair of strongly developed carinae anterolaterally, extending from lateral ocelli to two-thirds the distance to median ocular tubercle (fig. 10A, E). Three pairs of lateral ocelli; anterior ocelli larger than median and posterior ocelli; anterior two pairs slightly separated from posterior pair by tubercle, distance between median and posterior ocelli three times distance between anterior and median ocelli. Median ocular tubercle smooth, situated in anterior 10% of carapace (table 1); distance between ocelli almost 1.5× ocular diameter. Carapace surfaces granular, with sclerotized crests mediolaterally. Posterior fovea present, distinct.

Chelicerae: Retrolateral surface with stridulatory surface (plectrum), comprising approximately 20 long, stout (ca. 13 times longer than wide), anteroventrally directed spiniform macrosetae (figs. 4A, B, 5A, B); mesal surface with few short, stout, anteroventrally directed spiniform macrosetae.

Pedipalps: Cuticle punctate with cristulae on retrolateral surface. Coxa, retrolateral surface punctate; ventral surface smooth; coxal apophysis with one terminal spine; prodorsal surface with long, retroventrally directed macrosetae inserted in cristulae, forming stridulatory surface (pars stridens) (fig. 6A, B). Trochanter longer than wide (♂), or subequal (♀) ; retrodorsal surface punctate and setose; prodorsal margin with five sharply pointed terminal spines (S1–S5) and one subterminal accessory spine ( AS), varying in size such that S3 ≥ S4> S5> S2> S1> AS (♂; fig. 7A) or S4> S5 ≥ S3> S2> S1 ≥ AS (♀; fig. 7B) ; space between S3 and S4 equal to or greater than length of S3 (♂) or equal to space between S4 and S5 (♀); prolateral surface with several spiniform tubercles and reddish setae (♂); proventral margin with two spines (♂). Femur laterally compressed (♂) or terete (♀), variable in length, two (♀) to three (♂) times longer than wide (table 1); prolateral surface with two spines, one prodorsal, short, sharply pointed, the other proventral, tubular, with sharp projection terminally, length one-quarter to one-sixth femur width (♂; fig. 9A) or short, sharply pointed, and situated apically (♀; fig. 9B); retrolateral surface rugose, with cristulae (♂) and punctate. Patella slightly shorter (♂) or longer (♀) than tibia (table 1); prolateral surface with reddish macrosetae and vestigial (♂) or distinct (♀) spine situated distally on proventral margin; one spine at base of patellar apophysis; retrolateral surface with cristulae proximally (♂) and punctate. Patellar apophysis elongated, almost one-quarter carapace length, punctate and slender (♂) or shorter and robust (♀); prolateral margin with row of blunt denticles; retrolateral margin smooth (♂) or denticulate (♀), with subterminal macrosetae. Tibia longer than wide, laterally compressed; prodorsal surface with sparse row of denticles; prolateral surface sparsely punctate, with reddish macrosetae; proventral margin with two spines distally; fixed finger, dorsal and ventral margins each with row of denticles. Basitarsus (movable finger), dorsal and ventral margins each with serrate row of denticles; prolateral surface with several reddish macrosetae; apex bifid (♂).

Legs: Surfaces setose. Leg I, basitarsal and telotarsal tarsomeres I–VII gradually decreasing in length, with tarsomere I longest, tarsomere VIII two-thirds length of tarsomere I. Legs I–III coxae, lateral surfaces and IV, dorsal surface each with setose spiniform tubercles. Legs II–IV trochanters, dorsal and lateral surfaces with setose spiniform tubercles; femora dorsal surfaces with setose spi-